Around the league part 2

[Ziggy Stardust]

Virtually everyone plays better with Danault and Moore. That's what makes them a great pair. I honestly can't think of a player whose level of play drops on their line.

Why do the one-dimensional vets, like PLD and Fiala, get the "they were playing with plugs" defense when they're the ones supposed to be making their lines better?

Trevor Moore had a career year playing with Fiala. The top line of Kempe-Kopitar-Byfield had the most even strength points together with 75, the next highest productive trio was Moore-Danault-Fiala with 62 even strength points.

Then you have a massive drop off with the next highest producing line having 15 points (and it was the lines of Fiala with Dubois and Laferriere, and Moore and Danault with Kaliyev, both lines had 15 even strength points).

It's interesting to see how much Fiala is getting discredited here.

 

[King'sPawn]

Trevor Moore had a career year playing with Fiala. The top line of Kempe-Kopitar-Byfield had the most even strength points together with 75, the next highest productive trio was Moore-Danault-Fiala with 62 even strength points.

Then you have a massive drop off with the next highest producing line having 15 points (and it was the lines of Fiala with Dubois and Laferriere, and Moore and Danault with Kaliyev, both lines had 15 even strength points).

It's interesting to see how much Fiala is getting discredited here.

I'm not trying to discredit him. I'm just saying the Danault line is very good on their own.

Regarding Moore, Fiala was part of 14 of Moore's even strength points (Fiala assisted on 7 of his goals, he assisted on 3 of Fiala's, and 4 times they were both assisting on a goal). Stats by Natural Stat Trick. Moore had 49 even strength points. With Danault, he had a hand in 13 of his 37 points.

https://www.naturalstattrick.com/playerreport.php?fromseason=20232024&thruseason=20232024&stype=2&sit=5v5&stdoi=oi&rate=n&v=s&playerid=8477942

It's good, but not great. Byfield, comparatively, had a hand in 17 of Kempe's 49 even strength points and 16 in Kopitar's 47.

If you want to look at the line exclusively, Danault and Moore had a hand in 23 of eachother's even strength points.

So, this is all to say Fiala is a good player on his own, but he didn't magically make the line exponentially better. He wasn't even the biggest factor in Moore's career year. That's not discrediting him. I just think he was benefitting from the Danault line more than the other way around.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

It's very simple.

The Fiala problem is his inability to score in the playoffs. That's not a discredit, it's a literal fact. It's not a carter or gaborik situation where the guys showed they were playoff ballers before and just landed in a bad situation; every team has tried everything they can with Fiala and he's been a bag of flaming dog shit every time.

The Blake problem is the inability to see that and to trade for him as if he's the final piece.

 

[Faterson]

Blake moved his best prospect

Revisionist history. Faber never, ever had the status of being the Kings' "best prospect". Giant recency bias to claim that retroactively, based on a single great season.

 

[BigKing]

Revisionist history. Faber never, ever had the status of being the Kings' "best prospect". Giant recency bias to claim that retroactively, based on a single great season.

It's the current situation so that's what happened. At the time, he wasn't considered the top prospect but Blake's job is to know what he has in the prospect pool.

I love this argument of revisionist history etc. This is a results business and we are evaluating the results two years later. Fact of the matter right now is that Faber put down the best season of any Blake draft pick and has only improved every season since being drafted.

 

[Johnny Utah]

Faber gets an 8 year deal and all of a sudden he’s second Jesus.

Barely anyone made this amount of fuss about Roy and Durzi when they both signed long term deals and neither recouped a player back like Fiala.

Combined those two recouped just a 2nd round pick.

 

[Faterson]

It's the current situation so that's what happened.

A year from now, the situation may be different, so then it would not have been what happened? That's textbook revisionist history. It's nonsense to evaluate past actions based on various outcomes the future may or may not bring. At the time of the trade, it was a debatable but defensible step, not "giving away the Kings' best prospect".

 

[Statto]

It's the current situation so that's what happened. At the time, he wasn't considered the top prospect but Blake's job is to know what he has in the prospect pool.

I love this argument of revisionist history etc. This is a results business and we are evaluating the results two years later. Fact of the matter right now is that Faber put down the best season of any Blake draft pick and has only improved every season since being drafted.

You’re both right. At the time of the trade it was value (not sure about the extra pick personally) but now you’d never make that trade in a million year. In fact 12 months after the trade happened you’d never make it.

The biggest debate at the time of the trade was if Fiala was the right type of move for the team, then there was some secondary debate as to if Spence was the better player to move. That point was certainly a fair one, especially as Spence was behind Clarke in terms of prospect rankings and they played a similar role.

To be clear, I didn’t like giving up Faber and was one of his biggest fans from the second he was drafted. I loved the pick when most of the board said ‘who?’. There were a couple of others that were even more high on him than I was

Whilst I rated him highly, Faber has clearly exceeded his initial projections as he would have been a top 5 pick. Whilst I agree they should know what they have in a prospect they have very little access to college players beyond dev camp which Faber did not attend and he was traded before the following camp. They have to be VERY careful with how they interact. So they had to rely on scouting and talking to the player which is obviously very different than working with a player directly. I don’t think that is necessarily an excuse as you can easily argue they should have done a trade after dev camp 2022 so they’d have a better idea of what they had.

I don’t think this is revisionist stuff, just people looking at it through different lenses. I probably wouldn’t have made that deal at the time although I also think it was arguably value at the time. It clearly wouldn’t have been value 12 months later.

BTW. For additional context this board had Faber 5th in our 2021 prospect ranking poll behind Byfield, Clarke, Turcotte and Kaliyev. Grans and Clague were 11th and 12th, Spence 16th (proving this board knows next to nothing)!

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Faber gets an 8 year deal and all of a sudden he’s second Jesus.

Barely anyone made this amount of fuss about Roy and Durzi when they both signed long term deals and neither recouped a player back like Fiala.

Combined those two recouped just a 2nd round pick.

This isn't the flex you think it is

"yeah well blake gave away TWO additional top 4 RH dmen ALSO now signed long term and only got back a 2nd" is exactly what people are complaining about

 

[KopitarGOAT420]

So if he was bad and his contract was so bloated he was negative asset then why are you going to play him half a game and cut a rebuild short to build a team around him?
You stick up for the organization so much but really you just shift each bad move to a different point where they messed up before it compounded.

So here's what happened.... He was bad and his contract was very bloated (making him virtually untradeable IMO) while the Kings were re-tooling (aka: When they would've potentially traded him). Now that they've come out of the re-tool and have been making the playoffs again, it doesn't really make sense to trade him especially because his level of play has returned to a very respectable level. Currently, they could definitely trade Doughty - And I've previously discussed in other posts why they likely should trade Doughty after this season if things don't go well (if this season doesn't go well I personally think they should start another re-tool). However, my point was that this 'they should've traded Doughty 5 years ago' idea is very very very clearly one of those things that is WAY easier said than done and highlighted why the trade would've been so difficult to pull off 5 years ago.

"why are you going to play him half a game"

• I've been in favor of reducing Doughty's minutes for the last two seasons.
• During the re-tool, it was understandable playing Doughty so much because that's who you're paying $11m and their only other option would've been playing Roy or Durzi over Doughty - Roy lacks offense and Durzi lacks defense
  • TLDR: He was still their best option during the re-tool
• After the re-tool (over the last 2-3 seasons), you could still argue he was their best option since his level of play rebounded significantly

"why are you going to cut a rebuild short to build a team around him"

• I've never said this was the right decision... It seems pretty clear at this point that this was a very poor management decision.....
• Although, I actually do think this 'plan' could've worked had Blake not shot himself in the foot so many times along the way (basically, the Kings would've followed the Dallas model and had a wave of young talent take over while Kopi and Doughty take on reduced roles while still playing really effectively)

I only stick up for management when I feel people are being unrealistic/unfair with their criticism (obviously this part is subjective).

I've frequently acknowledged and criticized mistakes made by Blake & Co... And I agree with a majority of the fan base that it's absolutely pathetic that Blake is still the GM of this team given the long list of mistakes he's made. The whole 'boys club' organization culture the Kings seem to have is also incredibly embarrassing and needs to go. However, I still look for ways to be optimistic about the team moving forward (please let me be right about Byfield and Clarke lol) and often times yes that involves looking at moves in a different lens to try to find positives / potential for things to work out.

 

[YP44]

I think BigKing is on to something with trading Roy instead of Doughty and keeping Faber instead. But its easy to look back at things in hindsight and say "coulda this, woulda that." Either way Blake majorly f***ed up in not moving Roy at the deadline.

I forgot Drew had a NMC so that makes moving him more complex. Plus knowing Blake, he wouldn't have even gotten a good return because he seems to get fleeced in just about every deal. Minny also drafted Ohgren in the Fiala deal and if he pans out to be a 2nd liner the trade looks even worse for us.

the problem is a lot of people were saying how Roy needed to be moved as LA was not winning shit with him and had now room to re-sign him, before the trade deadline. Why can we all see it but management cannot.

Because at absolute best it was still poor asset management.

Out:
Faber
Durzi
Walker
Grans
(bonus: Toby)

In:
Fiala
2 million of Provorov
part of PLDisaster

Durzi for a 2nd round I do every day. Was a hit for Blake.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Durzi for a 2nd round I do every day. Was a hit for Blake.

I don't hate it, but I also don't like trading a 2nd for a guy, developing him into a top 4 offensive/PP RHD, and then...just getting the same value back. They could have gotten more, but I wouldn't hand wring much about that raw value, the bigger issues is that apparently they rushed that trade (a "easy to deal with Blake" special apparently) to get the 2nd to trade for PLD.

But again, it's the whole, not the individual parts. the snowball effects of the asset losses of all these trades is cataclysmic and that's not an exaggeration.

 

[YP44]

I don't hate it, but I also don't like trading a 2nd for a guy, developing him into a top 4 offensive/PP RHD, and then...just getting the same value back. They could have gotten more, but I wouldn't hand wring much about that raw value, the bigger issues is that apparently they rushed that trade (a "easy to deal with Blake" special apparently) to get the 2nd to trade for PLD.

But again, it's the whole, not the individual parts. the snowball effects of the asset losses of all these trades is cataclysmic and that's not an exaggeration.

Wasn't Durzi part of the muzzin deal?

 

[BigKing]

A year from now, the situation may be different, so then it would not have been what happened? That's textbook revisionist history. It's nonsense to evaluate past actions based on various outcomes the future may or may not bring. At the time of the trade, it was a debatable but defensible step, not "giving away the Kings' best prospect".

Blake has horribly mismanaged the wealth of young assets he acquired while giving away real NHL players and losing on purpose. Trading away what has become his best draft pick/prospect acquisition to date is a shining example of his bungling of these assets, even if he he received a ~PPG winger in return.

It stung to lose Faber at the time but, like Blake apparently, most of us were of the belief this was a position of strength. Now, all that is left from this embarrassment of riches at RHD is Clarke and Spence. Myself and everyone else on this board can be wrong: Blake's job it to be right. He gets paid millions to be right while I get paid nothing to be right or wrong on this board, except for when I am posting at work like right now.

The trade was/is defendable. Sure. So is the Lucic trade. So is the Kovalchuk signing. The Kings didn't trade Barzal in the Lucic trade but that is how it is judged. They also didn't send a second first rounder but the fact Martin Jones got a 1st right after the trade makes that an argument as well. That said, it was a bad trade, as was the Kovalchuk signing: doesn't matter if you can understand the why since every decision in life involves one.

Brock Faber is currently the top result of the Blake rebuild. That's a fact. If you want to say it is revisionist history to say he traded his best prospect since Faber wasn't the consensus top prospect at the time of the trade, then fine. Doesn't change the fact that it only took two years for that to be the case and, most importantly, it is the current result.

I'm tired of the "How was he supposed to know?!?" bullshit that is used to defend Blake. It's his god damn job to know what and when to do it. If he is going to suck so bad at it, let any of us bozos on here do it instead for a quarter of the cost and put those funds towards better food options at Crypto.

Wasn't Durzi part of the muzzin deal?

Yes. Thought of as the weakest part of the trade, he became the top asset of Blake's first rebuild move.

Muzzin was ultimately turned into Keumper and Burroughs, if I am not mistaken.

Masterclass.

 

[King'sPawn]

the problem is a lot of people were saying how Roy needed to be moved as LA was not winning shit with him and had now room to re-sign him, before the trade deadline. Why can we all see it but management cannot.

In my opinion - if an organization is going for it in the playoffs, you don't trade vets like Roy. Teams win on depth, and if you're committed to a direction, trading away vets is running all over the place.

Now, that said, I felt they exited the rebuild too early and they shouldn't have gone for it.

But in the context of what they were doing, keeping Roy made sense.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

So even worse, Muzzin for grundstrom durzi bjornfot whch all turned into a 2nd used to acquire pld?

point stands, its still dogshit asset management, there's just so much of it that it's hard to keep straight which deal pissed what away.

 

[Schmooley]

Muzzin was ultimately turned into Keumper and Burroughs, if I am not mistaken.

Muzzin, 2 first round picks (Vilardi and Kupari), and Iafallo who could have been traded for a first round pick or 2 2nd round picks at the deadline in his peak year back before he signed the big extension.
All that for Kuemper and Burroughs.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

Muzzin, 2 first round picks (Vilardi and Kupari), and Iafallo who could have been traded for a first round pick or 2 2nd round picks at the deadline in his peak year back before he signed the big extension.
All that for Kuemper and Burroughs.

You can literally do this for ANY trade......all trades eventually turn into shit....

Amazing the amount of mental gymnastics being played on here in regards to this......

 

[Schmooley]

You can literally do this for ANY trade......all trades eventually turn into shit....

Amazing the amount of mental gymnastics being played on here in regards to this......

Its pretty straight forward you dont have to do gymnastics. You dont need to do backflips to type into google the players moved that returned Kuemper and Burroughs.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

Its pretty straight forward you dont have to do gymnastics. You dont need to do backflips to type into google the players moved that returned Kuemper and Burroughs.

I meant in general....Iafallo didn't return Burroughs or Kemper....it's utter nonsense....

 

[YP44]

Trade trees are fun but they remove all context.
For example could someone say Joe Nieuwendyk was dealt by the flames for Agostino, Hanowski, and Klimchuk?

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Trade trees are fun but they remove all context.
For example could someone say Joe Nieuwendyk was dealt by the flames for Agostino, Hanowski, and Klimchuk?

when we're talking about 2-3 years apart vs 20 years apart it's a little more meaningful.

 

[YP44]

when we're talking about 2-3 years apart vs 20 years apart it's a little more meaningful.

alright so we established some context needs to be taken into account. now it is understanding where the line is.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

alright so we established some context needs to be taken into account. now it is understanding where the line is.

I must be missing a post somehwere because I don't see the reference

But as far as where the line is I think it's more than fair to hold a current GM accountable for all his immediate moves.

 

[All The Kings Men]

I must be missing a post somehwere because I don't see the reference

But as far as where the line is I think it's more than fair to hold a current GM accountable for all his immediate moves.

The question was where is the line on trade trees and deciding when it's relevant.

I would argue if the same general manager executed both trades in question within the same 12-15 month window it's fair to link the two as part of one "unbroken" transaction.

The question was where is the line on trade trees and deciding when it's relevant.

I would argue if the same general manager executed both trades in question within the same 12-15 month window it's fair to link the two as part of one "unbroken" transaction.

Lombardi traded Eric Belanger for Jack Johnson.
Llombardi traded Jack Johnson for Jeff Carter.

Lombardi did not turn Eric Belanger into Jeff Carter.