Toggle sidebar

Kings Article: A Look Back At Dean Lombardi’s Plan To Build LA Kings Into A Perennial Contender

Great idea for this series. Very interesting reading. This is one series I will be printing out and re-reading. Well done, Gann.

Dean Lombardi is an engaging and savvy man. Almost everyone has a "plan," most too general. How many plans come to fruition?

I'm really looking forward to the next installment.
 
Last edited:
DL seems like a great interview, too. I've never been fortunate enough to even see the guy never mind speak to him. Great idea and great series, Gann.
 
Excellent article.

I wanted to expand on your statement that "drafting and especially development were areas that the Kings had historically ignored." I would say not so much ignored...the focus, since inception, was to trade away valuable draft picks for aging stars that had seen better days. This whole foundation was laid by none other than Jack Kent Cooke himself, and his successive GMs dutifully followed him. However short-sighted it was, Cooke's intentions were good: he wanted to have a contending team right away. He felt that this was the only way to get Los Angeles fans behind the hockey team in the fastest way possible.

In retrospect, this methodology failed miserably; we all know that now. Cooke only had to look east to Philadelphia to see how developing young players turned that team into a winner right away, seven seasons into existence a Stanley Cup champion. Yet still he traded away picks for aging stars. The one notable exception where it worked, and worked like a charm, was getting Marcel Dionne out of Detroit (then again, the opportunity presented itself and Dionne wasn't exactly "aging" at 23!).

We also gave up on promising young players, not just draft picks. Billy Smith, Larry Murphy, and Jimmy Carson immediately come to mind (yeah, I know Carson went for Gretzky, but still it was tough to lose him). This short-sightedness in developing a winning hockey team plagued the Kings for the better part of 30 years before Taylor said enough was enough (as you point out in the article).
 
Ron said:
Excellent article.

I wanted to expand on your statement that "drafting and especially development were areas that the Kings had historically ignored." I would say not so much ignored...the focus, since inception, was to trade away valuable draft picks for aging stars that had seen better days. This whole foundation was laid by none other than Jack Kent Cooke himself, and his successive GMs dutifully followed him. However short-sighted it was, Cooke's intentions were good: he wanted to have a contending team right away. He felt that this was the only way to get Los Angeles fans behind the hockey team in the fastest way possible.

In retrospect, this methodology failed miserably; we all know that now. Cooke only had to look east to Philadelphia to see how developing young players turned that team into a winner right away, seven seasons into existence a Stanley Cup champion. Yet still he traded away picks for aging stars. The one notable exception where it worked, and worked like a charm, was getting Marcel Dionne out of Detroit (then again, the opportunity presented itself and Dionne wasn't exactly "aging" at 23!).

We also gave up on promising young players, not just draft picks. Billy Smith, Larry Murphy, and Jimmy Carson immediately come to mind (yeah, I know Carson went for Gretzky, but still it was tough to lose him). This short-sightedness in developing a winning hockey team plagued the Kings for the better part of 30 years before Taylor said enough was enough (as you point out in the article).
Click to expand...

Right. Didn't want to go into all this in the story, though.
 
Great piece Gann. You're probably my favourite read when it comes to the Kings.
 
I highly value Gann's reporting and writing.

So many times HFers formulate theories based on speculation but you bring the insider info so we can base what we think we know as a fanbase into something based more on fact instead of just gut feel.
 
I would love to see an article about Phil Anschutz; there's not a dollar spent or a decision made about the Kings that doesn't originate somehow with him.
 
Rorschach said:
I would love to see an article about Phil Anschutz; there's not a dollar spent or a decision made about the Kings that doesn't originate somehow with him.
Click to expand...

Good luck. He isn't going to grant an interview. MAYBE Helene Elliott could get him...
 
FrozenRoyalty said:
Good luck. He isn't going to grant an interview. MAYBE Helene Elliott could get him...
Click to expand...

That's very interesting. Why won't he grant an interview?

I mean, I appreciate as an owner he doesn't demand the spotlight, but an interview here or there shouldn't be an issue. IMO.
 
Ron said:
That's very interesting. Why won't he grant an interview?

I mean, I appreciate as an owner he doesn't demand the spotlight, but an interview here or there shouldn't be an issue. IMO.
Click to expand...

The only interview he's granted that I'm aware of is when Leiweke resigned/was let go regarding the Farmer's Field thing. That's it. He just doesn't do interviews.
 
Gann is right Ron. Uncle Phil wants zero press/pub/ street cred.

It would probably be easier to get an interview with a vampire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom