Confirmed with Link: Andrei Loktionov traded to Devils for a 5th round pick

[KingPuckChoo]

Its just as exhausting as reading why player x or player y didnt fit in Darryl's system and the other excuses on top of it.

but it's true?

 

[Johnny Utah]

Honestly Moulson is the toughest loss of all these guys. He consistently scores goals and plays LW, a position of weakness on the Kings. Problem is he is a terrible plus minus player this year, he is killing my fantasy team. Purcell played RW, Kings have Williams, Carter, Lewis, Nolan who all play that position. Boyle was a center and Kings are again loaded there so much so we traded Boyle and Loktionov. Same with Hickey, dealt from a position of strength. The only downfall is that Manchester is hurting now because of some of these losses because the depth is in La or college or juniors, not in the Ahl.

 

[kingsfan]

Yes and next week we are all complaining again that our offense is dead.

Team is doing well currently and Loktionov would most likely not bring us to the promised land either. Yet the Kings get rid of some skilled players so easily because "the system" does not suit the player or that a specific player is so good at blocking shots. No good philisophy.

Lets face it, when he played center he did very well. He was also one of the best on the PP. Thank God we have won the Cup.

How does a "no good philosophy" win the cup?

Like it or hate it, but the style of play we have in LA didn't work for Loki, so he was dealt. That style of play led us to win the cup. I'm totally fine with how things worked out with Loki because he was given his chance. All you should get is a chance, Loki didn't make anything happen with that here so he was moved and is doing well elsewhere. It worked out well for everyone so far.

 

[gonnaneedsomewine]

Its just as exhausting as reading why player x or player y didnt fit in Darryl's system and the other excuses on top of it.

I will say that I hope Darryl doesn't have too much say in personnel decisions. I'd like to think he and Dean communicate on such issues, but ultimately Dean and his scouts make the final call, because Sutter ran the Flames into the ground as a GM. Sutter traded away a lot of draft picks and went after a lot of aging veterans instead of trying to get younger while getting better like Dean has. Sutter was more of a short-term quick fix type of guy who wanted to win now at the cost of the future. I much prefer Dean's long term building approach.

Honestly Moulson is the toughest loss of all these guys. He consistently scores goals and plays LW, a position of weakness on the Kings. Problem is he is a terrible plus minus player this year, he is killing my fantasy team. Purcell played RW, Kings have Williams, Carter, Lewis, Nolan who all play that position. Boyle was a center and Kings are again loaded there so much so we traded Boyle and Loktionov. Same with Hickey, dealt from a position of strength. The only downfall is that Manchester is hurting now because of some of these losses because the depth is in La or college or juniors, not in the Ahl.

I don't know how successful Moulson would be here, especially on Sutter's team. He's not a great skater, but more importantly he's not a physical guy and he's not that great defensively. He's really just a one trick pony who gets a lot of clean-up-the-trash in front of the net goals, which is a product of playing first line minutes and getting a lot of PP time. I don't know how well his reluctance to throw his body around and his relatively poor defensive game would mesh with Sutter. When you watch him play sometimes it looks like he's just floating around waiting for Tavares to get him the puck. He's not a guy that goes into the corners looking to win battles and I wouldn't characterize him as a guy who possesses a great shot like Carter because so many of his goals are really just tap-ins in front of the net.

 

[KingsCorona]

I'm not sure if he didn't fit our system or not... I thought part of the reason he struggled was that we had him on the wings a lot just because it was where we could fit him in. Stoll is drawing a lot of criticism lately, though... would he not have been a good option for 3rd line center right now? I'm genuinely asking, btw, not suggesting. How do people think he would have done?

Anyway, it's an entirely academic point.
I liked Lokti but he wasn't playing much and may have gone back to Russia, so I'm fine with snagging a 5th for him.

 

[Holden Caulfield]

I don't know how successful Moulson would be here, especially on Sutter's team. He's not a great skater, but more importantly he's not a physical guy and he's not that great defensively. He's really just a one trick pony who gets a lot of clean-up-the-trash in front of the net goals, which is a product of playing first line minutes and getting a lot of PP time. I don't know how well his reluctance to throw his body around and his relatively poor defensive game would mesh with Sutter. When you watch him play sometimes it looks like he's just floating around waiting for Tavares to get him the puck. He's not a guy that goes into the corners looking to win battles and I wouldn't characterize him as a guy who possesses a great shot like Carter because so many of his goals are really just tap-ins in front of the net.

I'm not sure if you watch much of Moulson? He's not "floating", he is an absolute master at finding the dead areas of the ice. It's a rare skill that simply cannot be quantified. He knows how to find the holes in the defense, an innate vision that allows him to find where to be to score.

It's true, he doesn't create much offense on his own, but he is the ultimate complimentary winger. He scores, that's what he does, he just has a rare knack for it. His lack of fantastic skill means he nevers dominates levels, but it ALWAYS productive. He just knows where to be on the ice. If anybody could find those holes, then anybody could be there. But they can't. It's a rare skill, almost as rare elite level skill. When you combine that hockey sense with skill you have a Sidney Crosby, but obviously Moulson has nowhere near the skills of a Crosby.

I'll take Moulson's hockey sense anyday over a skilled guy that can't think the game. Moulson would be an absolute perfect winger for a Richards that works his ass off to finish Richards stuff, or a playmaker like Kopitar who can set things up. Moulson doesn't look great doing what he does, but almost nobody else in the NHL can be so effective in their role as Moulson.

Hockey sense like Moulson is about the one thing you CANNOT teach EVER.

 

[Inner Turbulence]

I'm not sure if he didn't fit our system or not... I thought part of the reason he struggled was that we had him on the wings a lot just because it was where we could fit him in. Stoll is drawing a lot of criticism lately, though... would he not have been a good option for 3rd line center right now? I'm genuinely asking, btw, not suggesting. How do people think he would have done?

Pretty hard to predict, honestly. He couldn't play the same role or style that Stoll plays. Loktionov is probably never going to be a great forechecker and strong on the boards. So he would have to be a factor a different way with linemates such as King, Nolan, Clifford, Penner, Gagne etc.

I actually think Stoll has been playing well this year. Solid in the Face Off circle, disciplined with "only" 7 minors in 20 games, aggressive and consistent on the forecheck, chipped in 7 points and he is leading our PK in ice-time for forwards.

Still a shame Loktionov never was able to convince the Kings that he deserved a regular role. He's got terrific vision and good hands.

 

[gonnaneedsomewine]

I'm not sure if you watch much of Moulson? He's not "floating", he is an absolute master at finding the dead areas of the ice. It's a rare skill that simply cannot be quantified. He knows how to find the holes in the defense, an innate vision that allows him to find where to be to score.

It's true, he doesn't create much offense on his own, but he is the ultimate complimentary winger. He scores, that's what he does, he just has a rare knack for it. His lack of fantastic skill means he nevers dominates levels, but it ALWAYS productive. He just knows where to be on the ice. If anybody could find those holes, then anybody could be there. But they can't. It's a rare skill, almost as rare elite level skill. When you combine that hockey sense with skill you have a Sidney Crosby, but obviously Moulson has nowhere near the skills of a Crosby.

I'll take Moulson's hockey sense anyday over a skilled guy that can't think the game. Moulson would be an absolute perfect winger for a Richards that works his ass off to finish Richards stuff, or a playmaker like Kopitar who can set things up. Moulson doesn't look great doing what he does, but almost nobody else in the NHL can be so effective in their role as Moulson.

Hockey sense like Moulson is about the one thing you CANNOT teach EVER.

I have seen enough of Moulson to form an opinion on him. I just don't completely agree with your take on it. While I do agree that he has solid hockey sense and is often in the right place at the right time, much more of his success has come from riding on the coattails of Johan Tavares. Moulson creates virtually no offense by himself, as he's not a great skater or puck handler. So many of his goals come from a guy like Tavares putting the puck right on his tape for him to tap in or off rebounds of John Tavares' making a move to the net and shooting. Moulson is the type of guy who puts up 30 goals on a bad team because he gets a ton of ice time playing with John Tavares and on the PP. You put him on a good team like the Kings, where the opponent doesn't take you lightly on a consistent basis (unlike the Islanders), and Moulson isn't nearly as impressive. I'd say John Tavares has made Moulson look better than he really is because of the stat sheet. People see 30 goals for three straight years and get excited. It's similar to the Joe Thornton and Cheechoo/Setoguchi situation. Take those guys away from Thornton and you see what marginal players they really are. You take Tavares away from Moulson and he struggles to score 20.

His defensive game, physicality, and game away from the puck leave a lot to be desired. I don't think he'd be as good of a fit on this team as you suggest.

 

[Holden Caulfield]

I have seen enough of Moulson to form an opinion on him. I just don't completely agree with your take on it. While I do agree that he has solid hockey sense and is often in the right place at the right time, much more of his success has come from riding on the coattails of Johan Tavares. Moulson creates virtually no offense by himself, as he's not a great skater or puck handler. So many of his goals come from a guy like Tavares putting the puck right on his tape for him to tap in or off rebounds of John Tavares' making a move to the net and shooting. Moulson is the type of guy who puts up 30 goals on a bad team because he gets a ton of ice time playing with John Tavares and on the PP. You put him on a good team like the Kings, where the opponent doesn't take you lightly on a consistent basis (unlike the Islanders), and Moulson isn't nearly as impressive. I'd say John Tavares has made Moulson look better than he really is because of the stat sheet. People see 30 goals for three straight years and get excited. It's similar to the Joe Thornton and Cheechoo/Setoguchi situation. Take those guys away from Thornton and you see what marginal players they really are. You take Tavares away from Moulson and he struggles to score 20.

His defensive game, physicality, and game away from the puck leave a lot to be desired. I don't think he'd be as good of a fit on this team as you suggest.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting you didn't know enough about Moulson, I was just curious. No offense meant.

Would he post the same numbers? Probably not. But you can't have a team of the same type of guys, you need complementary players. Moulson is the type that can simply produce with other guys. He is just sneakily deadly, he is the guy I always watch when I watch the Islanders since he just seems to come out of nowhere to score all the time. He just has unreal hockey sense. He is the ultimate complementary player, and you need that.

Cheechoo is not a terrible comparaison really. Did anybody else come close to producing the same numbers with Thornton? No, because he was a bit of a similiar player, just knew where to be on the ice. People forget he put up 28 goals in 03-04 before Thornton, then 37 goals in 06-07 before injuries completely ruined his ability to skate at all. He gets a bad rap, ironically for being so good one year.

You need playmakers and you need guys who can complement playmakers. Moulson and even Cheechoo was a complementary player, but IMO that hockey sense to find the dead areas is the ONE thing you simply cannot teach a player. You tell when players are 9-10 years old who knows where to be on the ice to score, and who doesn't. And that simply does not EVER change.

Call players like Moulson leaches if you will, but the fact remains is that you put different players in that role and they simply do not produce like him. They know how to score.