Toggle sidebar

GDT: 2022-23 season game 53 LA Kings vs Carolina Hurricanes @4:00pm 1/31/23

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
  • We are currently aware of "log in/security error" issues that are affecting some users. We apologize and ask for your patience as we try to get these issues fixed.
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
johnjm22 said:
They're selling a product. Of course they're going to say that. That's how this works.
Click to expand...

No, it’s really not. GMs are candid about rebuilds all the time, including Dean Lombardi himself in 2006.

I don’t know why you’re carrying Blake and Luc’s water here. They meant exactly what they said in 2017. And they said it in crystal clear plain English. This is not complicated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bland
The Kings were pretty big dogs in that series, I don't remember the exact number but you were getting a pretty good price if you bet on the Kings. Same thing in the 2nd round vs. St. Louis. In the 3rd round and final I think the Kings were betting favorites after people finally figured out they were an unstoppable force that spring.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lt Dan
The Kings were only that big of underdogs because of the hole that Terry Murray's style of play dug for them. They were 10 to 1 to open the season to win the Stanley Cup. How do I know? Because I collected from the Bellagio after the Playoffs were over.

I don't blame folks for picking the Canucks based on their full season body of work and their SCF appearance the season before. But the talent gap, there was none. Look back now and know that the Kings were greatly superior easily in defensemen and in goaltending.

After the trade deadline, the Kings were elite. All the numbers including win loss records said so. Once they started scoring goals with the addition of Jeff Carter, the potential was there to beat anyone. And anyone and everyone they did.
 
cyclones22 said:
The Kings were only that big of underdogs because of the hole that Terry Murray's style of play dug for them. They were 10 to 1 to open the season to win the Stanley Cup. How do I know? Because I collected from the Bellagio after the Playoffs were over.

I don't blame folks for picking the Canucks based on their full season body of work and their SCF appearance the season before. But the talent gap, there was none. Look back now and know that the Kings were greatly superior easily in defensemen and in goaltending.

After the trade deadline, the Kings were elite. All the numbers including win loss records said so. Once they started scoring goals with the addition of Jeff Carter, the potential was there to beat anyone. And anyone and everyone they did.
Click to expand...

They were 20-something to 1 before the season. Then they went to 8-1 overnight with the Richards trade.

I only know because I was too wasted to place my bet and figured i could do it the next day, woke up, found out about MR incoming.

Not so fun fact, the only two years since 2000 that I haven't put 100 bucks on the Kings to win it all were 2012 and 2014
 
Again, to be clear, no one - including me - is disputing that the Kings were underdogs according to the mainstream hockey media and Vegas . That’s not being debated. However, according to all the important underlying statistics, the Kings *should* have been the favorites. They were superior in almost every way to the Canucks leading up to that series, and we had a small group of Cassandras shouting it from the mountaintops at the time to little avail. That’s the point.

The 2012 Kings were not some plucky underdog story. That team was a sleeping giant that started to stir after Sutter was hired, and woke up entire when Carter joined the team. Every measurable statistic of hockey supports that.

And by the way, these last few pages of certain posters denigrating the 2012 Kings in an effort to prop up the Rob Blake era has to be one of the most delusional Stockholm syndrome self-gaslighting galaxy brain takes I’ve ever seen on this forum. The inability to acknowledge the faults in the present necessitates a rewrite of the past. Incredible. Human psychology at work, ladies and gentlemen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chazz Reinhold, Schmooley, KINGS17 and 1 other person
Raccoon Jesus said:
They were 20-something to 1 before the season. Then they went to 8-1 overnight with the Richards trade.

I only know because I was too wasted to place my bet and figured i could do it the next day, woke up, found out about MR incoming.

Not so fun fact, the only two years since 2000 that I haven't put 100 bucks on the Kings to win it all were 2012 and 2014
Click to expand...
That's as bad as my inability to place a second bet on the Kings in 2012. I was in Vegas when they traded for Jeff Carter. At the time the Kings were out of the playoffs and 25 to 1 or something ridiculous at that point. I wanted to drop another 50 and was passing the sports book when my family was like "Let's get out of this casino". So I just kept walking instead of getting in line to place that bet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raccoon Jesus
SettlementRichie10 said:
Again, to be clear, no one - including me - is disputing that the Kings were underdogs according to the mainstream hockey media and Vegas . That’s not being debated. However, according to all the important underlying statistics, the Kings *should* have been the favorites. They were superior in almost every way to the Canucks leading up to that series, and we had a small group of Cassandras shouting it from the mountaintops at the time to little avail. That’s the point.

The 2012 Kings were not some plucky underdog story. That team was a sleeping giant that started to stir after Sutter was hired, and woke up entire when Carter joined the team. Every measurable statistic of hockey supports that.

And by the way, these last few pages of certain posters denigrating the 2012 Kings in an effort to prop up the Rob Blake era has to be one of the most delusional Stockholm syndrome self-gaslighting galaxy brain takes I’ve ever seen on this forum. The inability to acknowledge the faults in the present necessitates a rewrite of the past. Incredible. Human psychology at work, ladies and gentlemen.
Click to expand...
...but, but 8th seed (even though I think they finished 2 points out of 1st place in the Pacific Division).
 
  • Like
Reactions: SettlementRichie10
The advanced stat community was predicting the Kings to beat the Canucks in the first round back in 2012. The Kings possession stats were off-the-chart bonkers heading into the playoffs. There was a great article on SB Nation for a Philadelphia writer (Broadstreet Bullies) back then that I have to find sometime.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KINGS17 and SettlementRichie10
KINGS17 said:
...but, but 8th seed (even though I think they finished 2 points out of 1st place in the Pacific Division).
Click to expand...
People also conveniently forget that the Kings were the first team in the Pacific to clinch a playoff spot. So acting like they just squeaked into the playoffs is ridiculous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KINGS17
SettlementRichie10 said:
Good way to look at it.

If the Bluc era were even a quarter as successful as Lombardi’s era, no one would be talking about 2012.
Click to expand...
Nevermind success in this market.
If this regime generated a quarter of the hope as the Lombardi era, there would be fans wanting to raise Blake and Luc’s jerseys to the rafters at least two more times and throw in some statues in Ontario.
 
Raccoon Jesus said:
They were 20-something to 1 before the season. Then they went to 8-1 overnight with the Richards trade.

I only know because I was too wasted to place my bet and figured i could do it the next day, woke up, found out about MR incoming.

Not so fun fact, the only two years since 2000 that I haven't put 100 bucks on the Kings to win it all were 2012 and 2014
Click to expand...
Back in ‘92 or something my local team started 4-0 and the bookies did not follow hockey and we were still 150-1 against. We hammered the opposition in all 4 games by double digit scores (the hockey was bad). So I placed a £20 bet on us to win the league…. We didn’t win again until the last weekend of the season, a run of something like 0-30. I’ve never bet on any of my teams since. :)
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: Schrute farms, Raccoon Jesus and Choralone
SettlementRichie10 said:
No, it’s really not. GMs are candid about rebuilds all the time, including Dean Lombardi himself in 2006.

I don’t know why you’re carrying Blake and Luc’s water here. They meant exactly what they said in 2017. And they said it in crystal clear plain English. This is not complicated.
Click to expand...
It's true there are times when executives are honest about rebuilds. I recall the Rangers were some years ago.

But usually management will paint the rosiest picture possible for fans.

It's pretty obvious based on their actions they didn't have much conviction in this team being a contender.
 
johnjm22 said:
It's true there are times when executives are honest about rebuilds. I recall the Rangers were some years ago.

But usually management will paint the rosiest picture possible for fans.

It's pretty obvious based on their actions they didn't have much conviction in this team being a contender.
Click to expand...

Painting a rosy picture is a far cry from “we believe this team can contend for more Stanley Cups.”

How much more direct can they be? A single year later, Blake went out and overpaid a past his prime Ilya Kovalchuk.

Blake literally told you he wasn’t rebuilding, and you’re refusing to believe it. Please come back to earth, dude.
 
  • Like
Reactions: King'sPawn
johnjm22 said:
It's true there are times when executives are honest about rebuilds. I recall the Rangers were some years ago.

But usually management will paint the rosiest picture possible for fans.

It's pretty obvious based on their actions they didn't have much conviction in this team being a contender.
Click to expand...
Spending all of their available cap space on faded veterans and trying to trade the only assets available on Pacioretty tells you the opposite.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KINGS17
Why would anyone living in the tiny village of SoCal wish for their hockey team to win cups and division banners? Of course we should just be happy to have relevance once every twenty years or so, at best.
 
bland said:
Spending all of their available cap space on faded veterans and trying to trade the only assets available on Pacioretty tells you the opposite.
Click to expand...
The Kings didn't take any action that indicated they had conviction in that team being a contender.

As soon as Blake took over, the Kings stopped trading futures.

Actions speak louder than words.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom