Around the League '16-'17 Other Teams' Free Agent Frenzy

[WHOneedsSOX]

SJ looked much worse than expected and Vegas looked much better than expected. There is a little bit of both of those facts that impacts the other but, still, I'm going to hold off letting the Kings off the hook and putting the Knights on a pedestal until I see how Game 2 plays out.

That looked like one team ready to play and the other team not ready to play after a long lay off. Of course, Vegas is going to get another Game 2 home game with a key player from the other team suspended--this time actually deserved--so they've got that going for them.

I will say that the narrative of Vegas being made up of players other teams didn't want is complete and total bull****. The draft rules and the salary cap led to teams parting with players due to cap hits, making trades via forced hands and then still exposing 1-2 more players than would have been in the past.

No way Anaheim wants to just hand over Theodore or LA wants to get nothing for McNabb. They are in no way an expansion team like those that joined in the 90s.

Seriously though: **** them. Toss in helping out the Penguins for no god damn reason and they can go straight to hell. Good for hockey though if these new fans stick around.

I've actually read that Vegas played the Penguins. They intended to take Fleury all along but made it look like they weren't going to take him forcing the Penguins to offer whatever pick(s) they ended up getting.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

I've actually read that Vegas played the Penguins. They intended to take Fleury all along but made it look like they weren't going to take him forcing the Penguins to offer whatever pick(s) they ended up getting.

They played a lot of teams that way got some really good assets, and developed their pool of picks way beyond .... this success for them now is bonus, but that was extremely well done by McPhee

 

[BigKing]

I've actually read that Vegas played the Penguins. They intended to take Fleury all along but made it look like they weren't going to take him forcing the Penguins to offer whatever pick(s) they ended up getting.

I was referencing facilitating the Brassard trade for Pittsburgh.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

I was referencing facilitating the Brassard trade for Pittsburgh.

Think it backfired anyways for them, Jets just went out and got Stastny who is a better fit for them anyways,

 

[WHOneedsSOX]

I was referencing facilitating the Brassard trade for Pittsburgh.

Oooh I see. They got a 4th round pick out of that but yeah, there wasn't much reason to help a team that's also a threat to win the cup.

 

[bouncesonly]

Was really trying to be patient and polite, but you are either being intentionally obtuse, or you are one of the most ignorant person in San Diego.

It's not about best of 7 or best of 1500, it's that in those INDIVIDUAL GAMES, see the caps, trying to spell it out for you, the Kings did not get the bounces needed to win, IF THEY HAD GOTTEN THE BOUNCES, there is A CHANCE, they COULD HAVE WON, maybe not the series, but you HAVE TO HAVE THE BOUNCES as WELL AS THE SKILL to WIN IN THIS LEAGUE.

I capitalized ALL THE PARTS YOU SKIPPED OVER.

So in 4-3 game, you think bounces would have made a difference over 1-0 game? That's just asinine and ignorant.

Another poster said they needed to play better to create more probability of sorts for those bounces, absolutely agree with that, you could have latched on to that, but you literally made your stand on the most idiotic thing I have read, bounces might have made a difference in a 4-3 game vs a 1-0 game, or a 2-1 game, that's just plain out ignorant.

Be whatever you want, your argument is dismissing Kings ineffective offense, blaming their loss on bounces or the lack there of and had they played a longer series they would have gotten those bounces. Is that not it? You complain about 4 games being inconsequential as a sample size, yet you now say it's about bounces in one game.

I went to 3 of the 4 games. There wasn't much to do other than watch what unfolded in front of me. Other than the first period of game 4, Kings had nothing. And somehow this series loss is about bounces? Please.

 

[deeshamrock]

Dee,

For the most part, you are right, but, one bounce in Game 2, makes that a 1-1 series, it COULD have changed the outcome, probably not, but possibility, the Kings never tested the mental fragility of Vegas, hands down Vegas walked all over LA, but LA never broke to the point, of...a SJ break lol you know what I mean there?

As far as 3rd period come backs, don't necessarily see that as a red flag per se, I see what you are saying, but, I don't know if it's preparation, or lack of leadership, rather than, lack of confidence per se. It seemed like after two periods the Kings went, ok, yea, we actually can play, and away they go etc.

I understand your point on 1-1 being a difference in game 2, but the 29 SOG's, that's just not good in 5 periods. I disagree that Vegas was mentally fragile, through 4 games they never appeared that way to me.
But I agree that had the Kings won that game to tie the series, it may have made them more confident going back to LA. But I don't see that making a difference in the series, Vegas was the better team. I do think the Kings (players and front office) saw just how effective that system is and how that hustle and hard work 3 periods deep on every shift does work.

As for your thoughts on the 3rd period comebacks, the ''ok , yea, we can actually play and away they go', if that was their attitude , it's a bit arrogant and still point to lack of preparation. That kind of mentality works for a handful of games if your tired, but not for the large number the Kings have done that in and that extends back longer than this year. It's lazy. You can't have that attitude in the NHL, and take the opponent too lightly.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

Be whatever you want, you're argument is dismissing Kings ineffective offense, blaming their loss on bounces or the lack there of and had they played a longer series they would have gotten those bounces. Is that not it? You complain about 4 games being inconsequential as a sample size, yet you now say it's about bounces in one game.

I went to 3 of the 4 games. There wasn't much to do other than watch what unfolded in front of me. Other than the first period of game 4, Kings had nothing. And somehow this series loss is about bounces? Please.

No, it's not. You initially said the Kings offense was absolute trash yadda yadda yadda, I had no idea what it was during the season, you could have been right, you weren't, but you could have been, so I looked it up and saw, that, hmmm...they were 17th....they were without Carter nearly the entire season, that's not as bad as he's making it out to be, ok.

THEN you come out with the genius line of, well if you take away their top two scorers, it's trash, well, DUH Einstein, I think anyone could have come up with that, if you do that to ANY TEAM, it's trash.

You then point out the FALLACY of the 3 top scoring teams without their top two scorers being minimally worse, without considering, that that 237 was without Carter,

Then you mention a 4 game sample size of the playoffs etc, and said the games weren't close because the Kings didn't score enough, which is absolutely UTTER bullshit, that the only reason the games were close was because of Quick, which is somewhat less bullshit, but that belies the fact that he actually a part of the team, you make it sound like the Kings borrowed Quick , and have to give him back.

AGAIN, since you seem to be able to not grasp what a bounce is, if the Kings had a favorable bounce in Game 2, and win that OT game, it changes the series, do they win it, probably not, but they sure don't get swept, and it tests the fragility of Vegas's mindset, which is something the Kings never did.

You want to make shit up in your own mind to prove your right, go right ahead, but when you put it out here and get called on it, don't try and change it around.

I never said had they played a longer series they get those bounces.

I could care less if you went to 82 games, if you don't understand what it is your watching, it doesn't mean shit.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

I understand your point on 1-1 being a difference in game 2, but the 29 SOG's, that's just not good in 5 periods. I disagree that Vegas was mentally fragile, through 4 games they never appeared that way to me.
But I agree that had the Kings won that game to tie the series, it may have made them more confident going back to LA. But I don't see that making a difference in the series, Vegas was the better team. I do think the Kings (players and front office) saw just how effective that system is and how that hustle and hard work 3 periods deep on every shift does work.

As for your thoughts on the 3rd period comebacks, the ''ok , yea, we can actually play and away they go', if that was their attitude , it's a bit arrogant and still point to lack of preparation. That kind of mentality works for a handful of games if your tired, but not for the large number the Kings have done that in and that extends back longer than this year. It's lazy. You can't have that attitude in the NHL, and not take the opponent too lightly.

I'm not saying they were mentally fragile, we don't know if they were or not, because the Kings NEVER put them in a position to see.

29 shots in 5 periods, agreed, not the greatest, but a ton of those were blocked, etc, don't know what the actual shot attempts were.

As far as the 3rd period comeback, agreed, it's never a situation you want to be in in the first place, I just don't see it as a red flag of sorts.

 

[deeshamrock]

I'm not saying they were mentally fragile, we don't know if they were or not, because the Kings NEVER put them in a position to see.

29 shots in 5 periods, agreed, not the greatest, but a ton of those were blocked, etc, don't know what the actual shot attempts were.

As far as the 3rd period comeback, agreed, it's never a situation you want to be in in the first place, I just don't see it as a red flag of sorts.

Okay, that I read differently. Like the Kings going up like 3-1 and putting the Knights on the ropes, to test their mettle. Okay, that makes sense, to see if that resilience they had all year would have stayed same given the stakes being higher.

Red flag - To me it is, I wish they would be a team that went into the 3rd, up 3-1 after playing strong thru 2, locking in down. I don't like the pattern they've created thru the couple of years when they don't seem to take the game seriously when they're down until there's about 10 minutes left. Not to the extent they've done it.

But maybe with new talent coming, from the farm or trade, they'll have that difference maker who has the speed to catch the d off guard and pot those goals in the 1st and 2nd.
I think there will be changes on the roster next year and that should help.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

Okay, that I read differently. Like the Kings going up like 3-1 and putting the Knights on the ropes, to test their mettle. Okay, that makes sense, to see if that resilience they had all year would have stayed same given the stakes being higher.

Red flag - To me it is, I wish they would be a team that went into the 3rd, up 3-1 after playing strong thru 2, locking in down. I don't like the pattern they've created thru the couple of years when they don't seem to take the game seriously when they're down until there's about 10 minutes left. Not to the extent they've done it.

But maybe with new talent coming, from the farm or trade, they'll have that difference maker who has the speed to catch the d off guard and pot those goals in the 1st and 2nd.
I think there will be changes on the roster next year and that should help.

To each their own, I always view it was you have 3 outcomes going into the 3rd, up, down, or tied, as long as the end of the 3rd your up, life is good.

 

[bouncesonly]

Let's assume Kings offense wasn't trash. It was just mediocre. Is 3 goals in 4 games an expected result of a mediocre offense? Yes? Then we lost because of bounces? Kings sucked, their crappy offense was exposed, 4 times. Carter was kicking ass when he came back during the regular season. I recall him even playing with against Vegas towards the end of 82 games. But nothing in the playoffs. Kopi nothing. Brown nothing. Pearson/Toffoli....well, I guess they were just unlucky?

So far you're the only one saying Kings offense was not crap and they were unlucky due to no bounces. I have yet to read anyone else on this board confirming that bullshit. So no, I'm not the one making things up in my mind. You are. Maybe if you watched the regular season instead of looking up end of the season stats, you might get the same feeling. But instead, your sample size of watching just the playoffs has created a narrative that I would guess not many folks on this board would agree with.

 

[yankeeking]

Let's assume Kings offense wasn't trash. It was just mediocre. Is 3 goals in 4 games an expected result of a mediocre offense? Yes? Then we lost because of bounces? Kings sucked, their crappy offense was exposed, 4 times. Carter was kicking ass when he came back during the regular season. I recall him even playing with against Vegas towards the end of 82 games. But nothing in the playoffs. Kopi nothing. Brown nothing. Pearson/Toffoli....well, I guess they were just unlucky?

So far you're the only one saying Kings offense was not crap and they were unlucky due to no bounces. I have yet to read anyone else on this board confirming that bull****. So no, I'm not the one making things up in my mind. You are. Maybe if you watched the regular season instead of looking up end of the season stats, you might get the same feeling. But instead, your sample size of watching just the playoffs has created a narrative that I would guess not many folks on this board would agree with.

dude he is trying to say we were middle of the road in off. all season long without carter who is our 2nd best forward and still got in with 98 points and except for a coup[le of bad calls=bounces could have had home ice against the ducks and still be playing , yes the off. didn't deliver in the playoffs we had 1/3 of our top six out in those games and a generational dman out in the game with only 29 shots , mostly because we couldn't get out of the zone with the dmen in, this is not NHL18 ,this is the nhl , vegas is a very good team that smelled blood and forecheck the shit out of us it happens but to go alond with we suck we suck we suck shows your lack of knowledge or in experience with the game , you said you were at 3 of the games right how many blind passes into the middle of the ice did vegas make and almost everyone was on the tape or on the skate to kick up to the stick, that's the bounces he talked about, while our dmen or forwards would never make those passes its not how we paly and when they did it was a turnover, bounces , vegas won the series fair and square but if kopies shot is in inOT ,missed by inches , or TT shot doesn't hit a stick in game three we go up 2-0 OT they feel the pressure instead of us , they have played wreckless and free hockey all year if they ever feel pressure of a lose or two that might change......during the year people held up SJ for their off. even without JT how did they do last night

 

[Bandit]

dude he is trying to say we were middle of the road in off. all season long without carter who is our 2nd best forward and still got in with 98 points and except for a coup[le of bad calls=bounces could have had home ice against the ducks and still be playing , yes the off. didn't deliver in the playoffs we had 1/3 of our top six out in those games and a generational dman out in the game with only 29 shots , mostly because we couldn't get out of the zone with the dmen in, this is not NHL18 ,this is the nhl , vegas is a very good team that smelled blood and forecheck the **** out of us it happens but to go alond with we suck we suck we suck shows your lack of knowledge or in experience with the game , you said you were at 3 of the games right how many blind passes into the middle of the ice did vegas make and almost everyone was on the tape or on the skate to kick up to the stick, that's the bounces he talked about, while our dmen or forwards would never make those passes its not how we paly and when they did it was a turnover, bounces , vegas won the series fair and square but if kopies shot is in inOT ,missed by inches , or TT shot doesn't hit a stick in game three we go up 2-0 OT they feel the pressure instead of us , they have played wreckless and free hockey all year if they ever feel pressure of a lose or two that might change......during the year people held up SJ for their off. even without JT how did they do last night

Agree with most of what you said but I don't remember the bolded. Who are you referring to? I mean, Toffolli, Carter and Pearson were MIA all 4 games but they weren't "out".

 

[bouncesonly]

dude he is trying to say we were middle of the road in off. all season long without carter who is our 2nd best forward and still got in with 98 points and except for a coup[le of bad calls=bounces could have had home ice against the ducks and still be playing , yes the off. didn't deliver in the playoffs we had 1/3 of our top six out in those games and a generational dman out in the game with only 29 shots , mostly because we couldn't get out of the zone with the dmen in, this is not NHL18 ,this is the nhl , vegas is a very good team that smelled blood and forecheck the **** out of us it happens but to go alond with we suck we suck we suck shows your lack of knowledge or in experience with the game , you said you were at 3 of the games right how many blind passes into the middle of the ice did vegas make and almost everyone was on the tape or on the skate to kick up to the stick, that's the bounces he talked about, while our dmen or forwards would never make those passes its not how we paly and when they did it was a turnover, bounces , vegas won the series fair and square but if kopies shot is in inOT ,missed by inches , or TT shot doesn't hit a stick in game three we go up 2-0 OT they feel the pressure instead of us , they have played wreckless and free hockey all year if they ever feel pressure of a lose or two that might change......during the year people held up SJ for their off. even without JT how did they do last night

I'm saying our middle of the road offense was propped quite a bit by Kopi and Brown. And since our top 6 weren't able to convert or generate enough chances during the series against Vegas, our offense was exposed, there was no one else scoring while Vegas was rolling 4 lines like the Kings 2012. Is this not the case? Our we still going to say it was bounces? Let's say we did tied it up 1-1 in OT...you still see the Kings coming out on top? I'd like to believe Kings would come out on top cause I think we have good players but the way Vegas played those 4 games and how absent some of our forwards were, just don't see it happening.

 

[Herby]

If Tavares leaves and Dean blows it up the Kings should see how much he'd want for Anders Lee, that is basically the exact type of player the Kings need.

The cost would be pretty massive though.

 

[WHOneedsSOX]

Bellemare didn't practice today after getting cross checked by Kane last night. I bet Bellmare plays tomorrow... They did the exact same thing to the Kings.

 

[BigKing]

Losing Tavares for nothing is such a mismanagement if it happens.

Lombardi would be a good choice for a rudderless organization.

 

[DoktorJeep]

Little late to it, but folks in TO are pretty unhappy with the game 7 ice time for Matthews. Nick Kypreos was speculating that Babs hadn't cozied up to Matthews ever and let him know that he was his top guy. My guess is that Babcock never had to nurture a young guy who is also the best player on the team.

He inherited stars like Kariya and Yzerman. So maybe he didn't have to go to Lidstrom and Datsuyk and instill confidence early in their careers? With how bad Jake Gardiner was in that loss, and how loaded TO is with young forwards who are gonna need to get paid, I can't wait for the offseason speculation about the Kings trading Doughty to the Leafs this summer.

What more can be said about Sid Crosby. Dude is a freak of nature who dominates a group of superior genetic beings. I was fortunate to watch Wayne Gretzky when he joined the Kings and he's the only player I can compare Crosby to in terms of how they both just seem to always know how to score based on the situation on the ice. Neither player had a signature move, they were best known for how they play behind the net.

Crosby never beats you the same way twice, he's always thinking ahead. I think by the time he's done, he'll pass Gordie Howe on the all time points list, and maybe catch or pass Wayne on Stanley Cup rings. Who knows, if it weren't for his time missed due to concussions, maybe he'd be seriously threatening Wayne's all time records for playoffs, and perhaps, regular seasons.

Sharks vs. Knights, really what is there to say about that game? Once it was 4-0, I went up to bed, which was before 8pm easily. Pretty sure the last thing I saw was some guy who was let go by Minnesota go Moses on two unknown SJ defensemen, who proceeded to act like israelites and part ways in the middle of the ice for Alex Tuch to score. LA never got that embarrassed. No surprise this morning that it got worse when I saw the final score.

Can't say I feel bad for SJ fans / players, because of all the obvious reasons. But I'm not above rooting for them to win some games, because if the whole series goes the way last night did, I've got to find some other reason to start staying up later. And hats off to the Vegas fans, because they are living the dream that no one thought possible. Love it, and have no qualms about watching that team play because of how aggressive they are.

But, no offense to anyone reading this, but if the Knights do end up winning the Stanley Cup in their first season, it will basically remove all doubt from anyone doesn't already think the NHL is a joke and not a real major US sport. What else could better expose how manipulated the game is by having a hard cap; which the league which markets to fans as a benefit expressed as "parity", and good for the overall health of the game because of the support it gives small market teams because they can't outspend a smaller group of extra wealthy owners. It makes it obvious that the owners want the ego rush that comes with handing out large contracts, but want a referee to keep things from getting out of hand by a few crazy actors.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

I agree on some teams get those bounces, instead of hitting the post, it goes in, etc. But that's not what I saw in those 4 games. The Knights had the ice most shifts and the Kings were trying not to lose. That energy and speed the Knights used, all 4 lines, mostly for all 3 periods wasn't something the Kings could match. Hoping for that odd bounce of a puck, might have changed the results in that period, but not the game because you need more than that.

In game 2, in 92 minutes, they Kings had 29 shots on goal. That's not lack of luck . Jonathan Quick was the reason those games were close. The Kings didn't have sustained zone time, cycling or pressure. They didn't have the speed or depth to match the Knights.

All those games in the regular season when they had those 3rd period comebacks, that's nothing to hang a badge on. That's fine if it's the odd game , but not to the extent the Kings needed that to win far too many games. That's not what good teams do. That should have been a red flag. Far too often, they were slow in the 1st and 2nd, and then about halfway thru the 3rd, they'd 'wake up'. That's lack of preparation and leadership.

But they have drafted well last year and will so this year. The youth on the team this year played well, most young players, they need about 240 games of so , to really take root. It's a rough adjustment , coming in to the NHL. Luc and Blake aren't blind, they can see what the makes those teams that are going deep tick. They will do the right thing to make this team more effective and efficient, but it takes time.

People keep saying this and using Game 2 as an example but Game 2 was the aberration for a lot of really obvious reasons.

Kings didn't play well enough to win, but they played better as the series went on, and actually controlled most of the flow of play in the final game before just collapsing under pressure. And they actually DID have most of the zone time later in the series. VGK is just absolutely surgical about generating dangerous looks.

Quick was the story early in the series, Fleury was late in the series.

Be whatever you want, your argument is dismissing Kings ineffective offense, blaming their loss on bounces or the lack there of and had they played a longer series they would have gotten those bounces. Is that not it? You complain about 4 games being inconsequential as a sample size, yet you now say it's about bounces in one game.

I went to 3 of the 4 games. There wasn't much to do other than watch what unfolded in front of me. Other than the first period of game 4, Kings had nothing. And somehow this series loss is about bounces? Please.

I mean, that's pretty clearly not what he's saying. Kings offense wasn't good in this series but it wasn't THAT miserable all year. Yes, it's a clear deficiency that will have to be addressed via coaching and playing personnel, and a sweep is never close because you're run out of the series, but each individual game presented at least one very clear key moment that could have been a chance to change everything. That's a LOT more than the Sharks demonstrated last night. Game one, controlling play, Brown whiffs an open net. Who knew that would be game? I can't even count the posts later in the series. That's all he's saying. We didn't get puck luck--maybe we didn't deserve it in the first couple of games--but I think most would argue we deserved a better fate in Game 4, but by that point we had put ourselves too far out of the series anyway with no margin for error.

The series loss is NOT about bounces, it's about not being good enough, but the point is that several people are acting like the Kings were a hapless team drowning without a chance when they very clearly weren't.

 

[kingsholygrail]

Last time the Kings had a hart nominee?

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

OH REALLY WHERE ELSE HAVE WE SEEN THAT BEFORE

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Last time the Kings had a hart nominee?

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

Let's assume Kings offense wasn't trash. It was just mediocre. Is 3 goals in 4 games an expected result of a mediocre offense? Yes? Then we lost because of bounces? Kings sucked, their crappy offense was exposed, 4 times. Carter was kicking ass when he came back during the regular season. I recall him even playing with against Vegas towards the end of 82 games. But nothing in the playoffs. Kopi nothing. Brown nothing. Pearson/Toffoli....well, I guess they were just unlucky?

So far you're the only one saying Kings offense was not crap and they were unlucky due to no bounces. I have yet to read anyone else on this board confirming that bull****. So no, I'm not the one making things up in my mind. You are. Maybe if you watched the regular season instead of looking up end of the season stats, you might get the same feeling. But instead, your sample size of watching just the playoffs has created a narrative that I would guess not many folks on this board would agree with.

Well glad it's not me thinking your completely missing the point,

As other posters have said, not even CLEARLY what I was saying,

Nothing much left to respond here, you want to minimize what Brown and Kopitar did, and then call the offense crap, ok, sure, if it makes you feel better.

And yes, Toffoli was definitely unlucky in that series, 2-3-4 posts was it, and a nice save/slash to thwart another, that's 4 goals right there, but hey, it's crappy offense because YOU went to the games,

I guess.

 

[bouncesonly]

3 goals in 4 games. That’s just ok offense and a bit of no-luck. Alright, I’m wrong :/