GDT: 2024-25 season game 3 LA Kings vs Ottawa Senators @10:00am (Again) 10/14/24

[GoldenBearHockey]

Agreed although in theory it could go the other way on any trade. So for example 3 months later Iafallo costs a 1st rd pick to dump him. So, what the assets could get at a later date (in any trade) could be better or worse than what they garner in the moment.

So I think you can only assess in the moment rather than ‘what ifs’ and in the moment it was bad - just an opinion obviously.

Agreed, I think people are misconstruing what I am saying though,

The trade was bad, the thought process behind the trade was perfectly fine, and what you want from your management group, as a player of the team.

The trade was worse in hindsight, because the evaluation of Dubois clearly ended up on the, we can fix him side, and they were clearly wrong. But you want your management team to take shots like that.

 

[BaileyFan]

It's not like the thing he was most known for was the laziest shift of all time. Nothing like that.

He thinks if they didn’t trade for PLD then they’d be Buffalo or something.

 

[All The Kings Men]

Agreed although in theory it could go the other way on any trade. So for example 3 months later Iafallo costs a 1st rd pick to dump him. So, what the assets could get at a later date (in any trade) could be better or worse than what they garner in the moment.

So I think you can only assess in the moment rather than ‘what ifs’ and in the moment it was bad - just an opinion obviously.

I disagree completely.

I think professional sports has a long history of terrible mistakes and moves and I think it's because of attitudes like that.

If you want to evaluate something and then learn anything of value from it you should be intelectually honest and rigorous and not constantly trying to find the easy solutions that make it more fun to root for things.

Not crapping on you specifically.... just MY opinion.

 

[tigermask48]

Which do you hate more?

That opinion or thinking it is okay to put milk in the bowl before cereal?

Back to the food thread with your hot takes.

Ps the real answer is, whichever one you grab first, goes in the bowl first.

 

[All The Kings Men]

The trade was bad, the thought process behind the trade was perfectly fine, and what you want from your management group, as a player of the team.

The road to hell is paved with thought processes that were fine.

That's why people evaluate the impact of things. To improve thought processes moving forward.

The trade was a gamble and the stakes were significant.

The trade was worse in hindsight, because the evaluation of Dubois clearly ended up on the, we can fix him side, and they were clearly wrong. But you want your management team to take shots like that.

That's PART of why the trade was worse in hindsight.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

I disagree completely.

I think professional sports has a long history of terrible mistakes and moves and I think it's because of attitudes like that.

If you want to evaluate something and then learn anything of value from it you should be intelectually honest and rigorous and not constantly trying to find the easy solutions that make it more fun to root for things.

Not crapping on you specifically.... just MY opinion.

Terrible mistakes and moves based on what?

LA traded their 1st back in 79/80 whatever it was, had the chance to acquire Bourque, was that a terrible move? Yea, we know it is now, at the time?

What exactly are you supposed to learn from that?

The PLD trade, terrible trade, absolutely, but the process was there, they took a shot and missed, what exactly are you expecting them to learn, not to take shots?

The road to hell is paved with thought processes that were fine.

That's why people evaluate the impact of things. To improve thought processes moving forward.

The trade was a gamble and the stakes were significant.

That's PART of why the trade was worse in hindsight.

Dude, every trade is a gamble.....

 

[All The Kings Men]

Terrible mistakes and moves based on what?

The history of sports?

Babe Ruth, Bill Russell, Kobe Bryant for Vlade Divac, Herschel Walker... c'mon dude.

The history of sports is full of foolish mistakes and bad moves.

LA traded their 1st back in 79/80 whatever it was, had the chance to acquire Bourque, was that a terrible move? Yea, we know it is now, at the time?

What exactly are you supposed to learn from that?

That sports has a terrible history of short sighted transactions excused by attitudes like that?

What's the margin between perennial winners and teams like the Clippers or Sabres?

The PLD trade, terrible trade, absolutely, but the process was there, they took a shot and missed, what exactly are you expecting them to learn, not to take shots?

This is not a serious sentence.

Dude, every trade is a gamble.....

but not every "gamble" is the same and to ignore any attempt at further evaluation is short sighted and I'm actually done now.

Sorry for the thread derailment everybody. Or whatever.

 

[tigermask48]

I disagree completely.

I think professional sports has a long history of terrible mistakes and moves and I think it's because of attitudes like that.

If you want to evaluate something and then learn anything of value from it you should be intelectually honest and rigorous and not constantly trying to find the easy solutions that make it more fun to root for things.

Not crapping on you specifically.... just MY opinion.

Not just your opinion. This really is the way people should look at assets in sports. It's something a lot of us, including myself, can be better at around here.

It' is part of why, while I don't always agree with people, I do value your viewpoint as an insider, or johnjm's analytical approach, etc.

 

[bland]

I know we all love the trades and news and individual players as fans, but the health of an organization isn't determined by those moves or their results. The results shift and change depending on the time they are viewed compounded by others varying factors that aren't really related to that one move.

You need to widen your view and look at WHY the decisions were made, its so much more revealing than WHAT was done. The Kings have had a broken model since Blake was hired. They incorrectly read the terrain and made choices based on a flawed understanding of their place in the league. Some of those individual moves worked, a whole lot of them didn't - but it's the reasons that they were made that has consistently been misguided at best, incompetent at worst.

The reason I point at the Faber/Fiala deal as being SO much worse than Dubois was its intention. The move was a continuation of the poor read that lead to the Danault and Arvidsson acquisitions. The team was nowhere near ready to start bringing in veteran impact players into the supporting roles that should have gone to the kids. It fractured the developmental plans, damaged the confidence of the kids, and had absolutely zero chance of working. The Fiala deal was the first one that cost the team a MASSIVE cornerstone piece of moving forward so the rebuild would actually mean something. It signified that they weren't going to accept the amount of time it was going to take to organically build a franchise capable of winning.

The plan here is the problem, the subsequent moves are honestly irrelevant. If it's not going to work, it's not going to work regardless of the cost put into the band-aid solutions.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

I know we all love the trades and news and individual players as fans, but the health of an organization isn't determined by those moves or their results. The results shift and change depending on the time they are viewed compounded by others varying factors that aren't really related to that one move.

You need to widen your view and look at WHY the decisions were made, its so much more revealing than WHAT was done. The Kings have had a broken model since Blake was hired. They incorrectly read the terrain and made choices based on a flawed understanding of their place in the league. Some of those individual moves worked, a whole lot of them didn't - but it's the reasons that they were made that has consistently been misguided at best, incompetent at worst.

The reason I point at the Faber/Fiala deal as being SO much worse than Dubois was its intention. The move was a continuation of the poor read that lead to the Danault and Arvidsson acquisitions. The team was nowhere near ready to start bringing in veteran impact players into the supporting roles that should have gone to the kids. It fractured the developmental plans, damaged the confidence of the kids, and had absolutely zero chance of working. The Fiala deal was the first one that cost the team a MASSIVE cornerstone piece of moving forward so the rebuild would actually mean something. It signified that they weren't going to accept the amount of time it was going to take to organically build a franchise capable of winning.

The plan here is the problem, the subsequent moves are honestly irrelevant. If it's not going to work, it's not going to work regardless of the cost put into the band-aid solutions.

That's a whole different argument of should they be taking the shots at all vs when they should

 

[johnjm22]

Building a contender is about timing. Everything needs to come together at the right TIME.

Kopitar and Doughty are too old. Byfield and Clarke are too young.

This is what happens when you don't have good long term plan that you're sticking to.

 

[King'sPawn]

Building a contender is about timing. Everything needs to come together at the right TIME.

Kopitar and Doughty are too old. Byfield and Clarke are too young.

This is what happens when you don't have good long term plan that you're sticking to.

Clarke is in his D+4 season. Doughty was in his D+4 season when the Kings won their first cup.

Byfield is in his D+5 season. Kopitar was in his D+7 year.

They just feel younger because of how new they are to being focal points in the org.

Your point remains the same - the Kings haven't committed to a long-term plan, but the age of the players is just an optical illusion.

 

[johnjm22]

Clarke is in his D+4 season. Doughty was in his D+4 season when the Kings won their first cup.

Byfield is in his D+5 season. Kopitar was in his D+7 year.

They just feel younger because of how new they are to being focal points in the org.

Your point remains the same - the Kings haven't committed to a long-term plan, but the age of the players is just an optical illusion.

In the context of who the player is, yes Clarke is too young.

Doughty was physically mature much quicker.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Yeah Drew was an impact player at 19

Clarke was busy being shuttled from LA to Ontario to NOT PLAY for a month before the WJC and finally going back to juniors

 

[Lt Dan]

Yeah Drew was an impact player at 19

Clarke was busy being shuttled from LA to Ontario to NOT PLAY for a month before the WJC and finally going back to juniors

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

View attachment 917412

Hey I don't make the rules!

I'm just grumpy that high-leverage kids are the ones taking the criticism and low-upside vets are being protected.

And so so many of us saw these things coming, it's not like it took a genius to be prepared.

Suddenly you have your bottom pairing RD playing soft minutes with the worst defenseman into the NHL thrust into the de facto #1 role

and your pushed-out-of-the-lineup-by-bad-decisions high pick prodigy finally getting the first somewhat meaningful playing time of his pro career

Of course there are going to be growing pains for those guys since they weren't appropriately developed.

Meanwhile, guys like Lewis and Burroughs have no excuse OR upside...

 

[Lt Dan]

....

Meanwhile, guys like Lewis and Burroughs have no excuse OR upside...

With a moustache like this, Kyle doesn't need an excuse

 

[King'sPawn]

In the context of who the player is, yes Clarke is too young.

Doughty was physically mature much quicker.

I just think we have a wide spectrum of how the players were handled.

Seamus Casey already has 6 games as a 20 year-old defenseman.

Quinn Hughes was in his D+1 season and played in the NHL after dominating in NCAA.

Players have had bigger opportunities at a younger age than Clarke. And now Clarke is having issues those same players have, but at a younger age. So, he looks more "immature."

The Kings' plan wasn't focused on the long term, and so the growth of their long-term assets has inadvertently been pushed to the wayside.