Speculation: Fire Rob Blake Blow it Up Offseason Thread (update: Robitaille, Blake and Hiller stay)

[SettlementRichie10]

nobody has ever lost a job or a credential as a result of being critical of the organization

it simply does not happen

I never said that, champ. That’s short for champion.

I said Hammond quit because he didn’t trust the organization/NHL to leave his articles alone.

 

[All The Kings Men]

I never said that, champ. That’s short for champion.

I said Hammond quit because he didn’t trust the organization/NHL to leave his articles alone.

You're right and Maynard is right to mock my contribution as it's coming from inside the house.

 

[Johnny Utah]

What coach will sign a long term deal with a lame duck GM?

 

[ScoreZeGoals]

What coach will sign a long term deal with a lame duck GM?

Yep, I said it the second Blake and Luc were retained, the Kings have very limited options for head coach. A lame duck GM and possibly team president to go along with a black hole roster isn't exactly an exciting opportunity for a coach

 

[Nasti]

What’s Brady Murray doing these days?

 

[Lt Dan]

You're right and Maynard is right to mock my contribution as it's coming from inside the house.

You know what you gotta do then Jesse. Turn the tables.
You gotta post from on top on your house.

 

[KINGS17]

You're right and Maynard is right to mock my contribution as it's coming from inside the house.

Perhaps if you could point to a series of articles or posts consistency criticizing BLuc's approach to managing this franchise people here might be more receptive to your "Kings media isn't influenced by Kings management" claim.

 

[Statto]

Perhaps if you could point to a series of articles or posts consistency criticizing BLuc's approach to managing this franchise people here might be more receptive to your "Kings media isn't influenced by Kings management" claim.

The media that are employed by the team are there primarily to give news, results and to promote the organisation. They probably are left to their own devices because it’s recognised that they aren’t idiots. None of the guys employed by the team are going to call Luc an embarrassment, even if they think he is nor will the call for Blake’s head. It’s unrealistic to expect it. There is absolutely an implied influence, simply because they are employed by the franchise.

The mayor is different as whilst there is an affiliation, from what I understand he’s not paid. However again there is an implied influence because of that affiliation and for the
Mayor it’s more of a grey area for where the line is in terms of what criticism he can get away with. Given the number of quality guests it seems to give him access to, I certainly understand why he doesn’t try to explore where the line is. I don’t have an issue with him and found him very genuine and helpful when I needed his assistance. My gut is that he’s a decent guy. I don’t like how he talks about some fans though even if it’s just the X cess pit he is referring to.

The issue isn’t the guys we are familiar with, it’s the lack of true independent coverage. Locked On seems a fairly decent option but beyond that it’s thin. That isn’t the fault of Jesse or the Mayor though, they are what they are so for me most of the criticism is misdirected. The organisation needs to work to attract a wider media interest and this is something Luc should be focusing on, as opposed to interfering with GM and/or coaching decisions.

 

[Schrute farms]

What coach will sign a long term deal with a lame duck GM?

A lame duck coach

 

[kingsfanman]

If I were the owner, I would create a separate small media company to cover the Kings, funding it through a Cayman Islands shell company with a fake wealthy private fan owner who wants to invest in independent coverage of the team. I would ask the outlet to investigate and question everything to hold the hockey organization accountable.

 

[YP44]

I still like the idea of the hershey bears coach. has developed players, has won in the playoffs. good enough for me.

 

[chris kontos]

bergevin will hire michel therrien ex montreal x2 and ex penguin head coach. he also worked as a lineman for bell canada.
i think claude julien has had it but there's always a chance.
you can bet that whoever gets hired will be nothing more than a punk for the three stooges- bergevin, luc and blake.

 

[tny760]

What coach will sign a long term deal with a lame duck GM?

he happens to be a lawyer too

 

[Herby]

nobody has ever lost a job or a credential as a result of being critical of the organization

it simply does not happen

So you believe that Hoven and Bernstein are being paranoid? Because there have been instances where they have said that their coverage and insider information is tied to having "positive relationships with the Kings". Would they not be fed the type of guests and presumably information they are given if they had a more realistic outlook on the job done by those running the Kings?

If those guys feel that way, and in light of other things that have happened to people who cover the team, why is it outrageous to think that the organization wants only certain types of media ideas pushed?

If Hoven came out today and said,

"these past seven years have obviously been a failure, the development has not been what was needed, the results have been poor, the blame has to fall at the feet of the decision makers"

Does he have the same access to the team and interviews this summer? Keep in mind this would just be holding a view that the vast majority of the fanbase believes.

Plenty of comments like that are made by sports media members all over the continent, how many people are losing their press credential over it, (that is what they said in the pod before last)

I've already addressed a lot of this in a previous post, so I apologize if I don't respond to every point again. And you as well as several others have your opinions on Hoven, and it's pointless to argue or try to change your minds.

The focus is on the draft now. There's very little from any media source about additional news regarding PLD, coaching changes, management changes, etc. You can keep thinking that Hoven's just sitting by his phone waiting for the next thing management wants him to say. He's not. Like the rest of us, he also has a full-time job and follows up the best he can with the information he thinks is accurate, interesting, and appropriate for public consumption. If there's nothing there from Hoven, it either doesn't match the criteria above or he doesn't have any information.

As far as Yannetti, you keep claiming how much he lies when we literally agree with the general point that the Kings take an unconventional and rigid path to development, and even their top picks spend way too much time in the AHL. Are there exceptions? Yes. But to say Yannetti is flat out lying at this point, when even we complain about the Kings developmental decisions, is talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Based on his social media, I do think Hoven has a lot of genuine respect for Yannetti. If I were to make a top-3 list of people he has openly shared the highest respect, it would be Kyle Clifford, Mike Stothers, and Mark Yannetti.

Is it respect to the point of naivete? That's up to you to decide. I think when Yannetti tells this "lie", it's a general attitude of management and the team without delving into the exceptions. That's my interpretation.

I get Hoven and Bernstein rub people the wrong way. I can't control that. I think, unfortunately, there has been an increasingly combative relationship between some fans and KotP. That doesn't make things okay. But I'm not going to tell them how to do their podcast unsolicited, either.

I will say, and I said it earlier in the thread, that I mentioned the importance of knowing the audience for articles - fans are rightfully frustrated with management, and I echoed several of my own sentiments for that dissatisfaction. I can't promise change in content, only what I will continue to write. And with my content, it's not a platform I will use to take pot shots at management, as tempting as it has been at times.

So, I understand several of you have issues with Hoven. I'm not saying you don't have a right to, as I'm sure your experiences and interpretations vary. I do truly want you all to have a better experience and opinion of him, because I care about him as I do all of you. I hope things eventually turn out for the better.

But there are plenty of things he doesn't say. So, again, your assertion he's there to parrot management is simply incorrect. I understand why you feel that way, and I'm honestly sorry you do, but it's simply incorrect.

I don't really care if Yannetti has an opinion or not, if he wants to go on Hoven's show and tell us that the slow-cook is the greatest development strategy in the history of hockey, that every player needs to spend a minimum of two seasons in the AHL, that inserting young players into bottom six roles with Trevor Lewis is optimal for growth and that Rob Blake is the brightest mind in the league.

My issue with Yannetti is using past successes of the organization (doing things a different way) to hype up what they are doing now. Nobody who followed this team in the building years of 2006-2009 could in their right mind say that they were a slow cook organization. Kopitar and Doughty went straight to the NHL as teenagers, never stepping foot on AHL ice. Jack Johnson jumped straight from college to the NHL at 20, never stepping foot on AHL ice, Wayne Simmonds never played an AHL game before making the Kings at 20, Oscar Moller made the team at 19 with only a handful of AHL games at the end of his age 18 season, Jonathan Quick as a goaltender played only one season of minor pro hockey before becoming the Kings starting goaltender at age 22. I use the word liar, because Yannetti is lying when he says the Kings have "always been a slow cook organization" and that "slow-cooking players brought us two Stanley Cups". This is blatantly dishonest and both Yannetti and Hoven should be embarrassed that they were said, and that they were amplified on Hoven's show.

You seem to take offense to the term lies, but what is a better term? Do you believe Yannetti is being truthful when comparing the Kings under DL to the Kings under Rob Blake? Do you believe Hoven is being truthful when he parrots those same comments to listenders?

Hoven seems to get angry when people say he parrots the ideas of the organization, but perhaps a way to not have people think like that would be to stop pushing lies like these. But instead of looking in the mirror and saying "am I pushing lies told to me" his MO is to attack the listers who point out the lies and the parroting.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

For me the litmus test is one's reaction to "this season we improved, look we scored more goals and let fewer in."

And there are some good independent guys covering the team lately, they're the ones getting their questions laughed at and shit-eating-grinned by leadership, like how dare you.

These guys don't appreciate how easy they have it, which is what's so maddening.

I wish someone could bring Spector or one of those other dipshits to this market just to stir the pot at this point.

Hell this might be my villain origin story at this point.

 

[Herby]

For me the litmus test is one's reaction to "this season we improved, look we scored more goals and let fewer in."

And there are some good independent guys covering the team lately, they're the ones getting their questions laughed at and shit-eating-grinned by leadership, like how dare you.

These guys don't appreciate how easy they have it, which is what's so maddening.

I wish someone could bring Spector or one of those other dipshits to this market just to stir the pot at this point.

Hell this might be my villain origin story at this point.

When you factor in the limited media coverage/criticism and what sure appears to be absentee ownership with zero demands for tangible results, the Kings GM job is probably the least pressure filled job in major American sports.

There are teams where the media doesn't care, and there are markets with terrible absentee ownership, but both things? That may be unique to the Kings.

 

[All The Kings Men]

So you believe that Hoven and Bernstein are being paranoid? Because there have been instances where they have said that their coverage and insider information is tied to having "positive relationships with the Kings". Would they not be fed the type of guests and presumably information they are given if they had a more realistic outlook on the job done by those running the Kings?

No. I think you have a habit of being incredibly literal and not allowing for the possibility of turns of phrase or the natural flourishes that occur within extemporaneous speech.

If I say there's literally millions of examples of this I would expect people to understand that I'm using hyperbole... yet I could also be called "a liar" if one were to apply a totally literal interpretation.

Additionally... There's a difference between the Kings giving direct instructions to people and people using their own social awareness to realize that if they criticize certain players or organizations it might influence their relationships.

Nobody ever told me to stop using profanity on All The Kings Men. That was a decision I made independently based on how I felt I should behave as my role grew. Was that influenced by the Kings?

I dunno... but nobody TOLD me to do it.

If those guys feel that way, and in light of other things that have happened to people who cover the team, why is it outrageous to think that the organization wants only certain types of media ideas pushed?

Have you paid any attention to Andrew Knoll? Or Eric Stephens? Or Austin Stanovich?

There have been plenty of explicit criticisms of the organization and none of them have had their access revoked or reduced.

 

[Herby]

No. I think you have a habit of being incredibly literal and not allowing for the possibility of turns of phrase or the natural flourishes that occur within extemporaneous speech.

If I say there's literally millions of examples of this I would expect people to understand that I'm using hyperbole... yet I could also be called "a liar" if one were to apply a totally literal interpretation.

Additionally... There's a difference between the Kings giving direct instructions to people and people using their own social awareness to realize that if they criticize certain players or organizations it might influence their relationships.

Nobody ever told me to stop using profanity on All The Kings Men. That was a decision I made independently based on how I felt I should behave as my role grew. Was that influenced by the Kings?

I dunno... but nobody TOLD me to do it.

Have you paid any attention to Andrew Knoll? Or Eric Stephens? Or Austin Stanovich?

There have been plenty of explicit criticisms of the organization and none of them have had their access revoked or reduced.

God forbid one uses someones literal quotes to base their opinion. But since I am apparently to stupid to figure it out hyperbole and sarcasm, maybe you, @King'sPawn or @Statto or anyone else who agrees with you can further translate for the uninformed what he meant by this quote, since we apparently can't take it literally.

We have always been a slow-cook team, from my entire time here, going back to when Dean first got here. And that worked, we won two Stanley Cups with a slow-cook approach.

First off, do you believe these comments to be accurate of the situation? Yes or No. Since you are able to speak freely you should have no problem giving a Yes or No answer.

Second, since apparently it doesn't mean what he literally says (which was factually incorrect), the floor is yours to translate what he "really meant" with this quote. Since apparently it's ridiculous to think he may be "lying" about things in the past to protect his current bosses and himself. It's even more funny and laughable when you consider that Hoven has used the exact words that Yannetti used on that podcast to carry water for Blake's antiquated development strategy. If Yannetti was being sarcastic and not serious, and everyone knew it, why on Earth would Hoven reference those quotes?

I'm truly genuinely curious what you guys think he means by these quotes and why I am wrong to call him a "liar" for it?

You can also tell us why we can't take literal quotes by Hoven and Bernstein about "losing insider access" can't be taken seriously, why would they say it?

As for the other guys, how much coverage is each one granted and has to lose? The debate isn't that the Kings force every member of their organization to act a certain way, the debate is that the one with the largest following feel compelled and/or are directed to carry water for the organization and is thus given insider information and the top interviews to do so. But I guess it's not fair to quote Hoven about having insider access tied to positive reporting. "That's not what he meant", right?

 

[All The Kings Men]

God forbid one uses someones literal quotes to base their opinion. But since I am apparently to stupid to figure it out hyperbole and sarcasm, maybe you, @King'sPawn or @Statto can further translate for the uninformed what he meant by this quote, since we can't take it literally.

I don't think you're stupid. I think you're incredibly intelligent. That doesn't mean you're right all the time.

First off, do you believe these comments to be accurate of the situation? Yes or No. Since you are able to speak freely you should have no problem giving a Yes or No answer.

As for the Yannetti quote... I don't remember who he said that to but if you want to take a look at the Lombardi teams I think you can point to Kopitar, Doughty, Simmonds and Clifford who spent no time in the AHL and then you can point to King, Nolan, Lewis, Voynov, Martinez and then if you wanted to include Brown, Cammalleri and Schenn you could.

On top of that you can address the manner in which the organization approached their goaltending.

I just don't agree with the way you're looking at things and so consequently I can't really give you a simple yes or no question. THAT'S why I don't stop a conversation mid flow to make some kind of point. As Hoven frequently says... your questions aren't his questions and if I don't see things the way you then I won't react to things the way you will.

Second, since apparently it doesn't mean what he literally says (which was factually incorrect), the floor is yours to translate what he "really meant" with this quote. Since apparently it's ridiculous to think he may be "lying" about things in the past to protect his current bosses and himself.

I don't know what he really meant but I think that what I said above is a demonstration that I think it can be interpreted differently than just "the Kings never slow cooked anybody and therefore anybody that says they did is maliciously lying"

It's even more funny and laughable when you consider that Hoven has used the exact words that Yannetti used on that podcast to carry water for Blake's antiquated development strategy. If Yannetti was being sarcastic and not serious, and everyone knew it, why on Earth would Hoven reference those quotes?

Hoven hears things differently than I do and thinks about the sport differently than I do. He also thinks about his role differently than I think about my role and differently than I think about his role.

I find John to be much more credulous than I am. That's another way that two (or more) people see the world differently.

I'm truly genuinely curious what you guys think he means by these quotes and why I am wrong to call him a "liar" for it?

For me it's the George Costanza principle.

"Jerry, just remember, it's not a lie if you believe it"

IF we were to accept your premise that he's being inaccurate (and I'm not saying I do) then the question is... does he KNOW he's being inaccurate and is he deliberately saying something he knows to be untrue in an attempt to intentionally deceive?

Based on my interactions with Yannetti and Hoven I don't think they're every intentionally trying to mislead people.

Maybe you think they're wrong, maybe you think they're wrong to a degree that reaches incompetence. That's between you and your god. I think Mark Yannetti is one of the most forthright people I've ever met.

You can also tell us why we can't take literal quotes by Hoven and Bernstein about "losing insider access" can't be taken seriously, why would they say it?

Because they're drama queens?

As for the other guys, how much coverage is each one granted and has to lose?

They all have credentials. They're all welcome to attend every game, practice, morning skate, zoom call etc that the organization has. They're also welcome to request additional access for one on one conversations.

I have no idea who does or doesn't make those requests but I frequently see various members of the media having private conversations with players or coaches.

Part of the problem is that the bulk of the media presence in LA is independent with no real "media training" so they may not even know or be comfortable making those requests but certainly I've seen it happen.

The debate isn't that the Kings force every member of their organization to act a certain way, the debate is that the one with the largest following feel compelled and/or are directed to carry water for the organization and is thus given insider information and the top interviews to do so. With literal quotes to back it up, but for you the literal quotes don't matter and we can't take anything anyone says literally.

I feel like at this point this conversation were just not gonna agree on how to interpret comments made off the cuff and I think I'll just apologize and bow out.

If it makes anybody feel better you can just say I'm wrong and call me a shill in your mind.

 

[BigKing]

No. I think you have a habit of being incredibly literal and not allowing for the possibility of turns of phrase or the natural flourishes that occur within extemporaneous speech.

If I say there's literally millions of examples of this I would expect people to understand that I'm using hyperbole... yet I could also be called "a liar" if one were to apply a totally literal interpretation.

Additionally... There's a difference between the Kings giving direct instructions to people and people using their own social awareness to realize that if they criticize certain players or organizations it might influence their relationships.

Nobody ever told me to stop using profanity on All The Kings Men. That was a decision I made independently based on how I felt I should behave as my role grew. Was that influenced by the Kings?

I dunno... but nobody TOLD me to do it.

Have you paid any attention to Andrew Knoll? Or Eric Stephens? Or Austin Stanovich?

There have been plenty of explicit criticisms of the organization and none of them have had their access revoked or reduced.

I agree with you on the bolded. The Kings haven't revoked credentials from The LA Daily News, The Athletic or The Hockey News. Problem we have is that googling the first guy gets you nowhere and the other two are covering both teams in SoCal so how dedicated is the coverage?

That takes me back to Hoven, as it always does. He has replaced LAKI. It used to be "Hammond said..." and then "Rosen said..." but now it is "Hoven said...". Even though the former two were employed by the Kings (was Hammond originally employed by the Kings?), they are both actually journalist and portrayed a level of professionalism in that regard, even if they were used by Management of that era to craft narratives (the "get used to Cammalleri not being here" movement being one that jumps to mind). There isn't anything wrong with Hoven reporting what he is told as the other two did, but he carries water for Management nonstop when he is not "reporting". That is his right to do so but that is a problem:

- The line between journalism and opinion is too blurred with him because he is not a journalist but appears to be one based on the access given.
- There is no way someone who has been a fan for as long as he has can honestly believe that everything is fine.

Good for Hoven to be a fan and then get to have direct access to the team while getting the chance to profit off of it via, I assume, advertising on the pod and website. Good for you as well: I'm sure there is a sense of jealousy amongst some who criticize fans who made their way into having access since it feels like a poster on here all of a sudden becoming a beat writer.

But at the end of the day, nobody who isn't backed by an actual media organization is going to bite the hand that feeds. If you are as into the Kings as you or Hoven are, this is some dream type stuff so of course you are going to look out for #1. While you don't do any disservice, IMO, Hoven has somehow made himself into the de facto primary beat writer with people taking whatever he says as gospel and, since he is not going to bite the hand that feeds, that leads to him being a propogandist for existing Management.

 

[Herby]

- The line between journalism and opinion is too blurred with him because he is not a journalist but appears to be one based on the access given.
- There is no way someone who has been a fan for as long as he has can honestly believe that everything is fine.

The guy would be better accepted if he were more honest, if he just presented himself as what he is, Axl with a platform. Just say he is a huge Kings homer and not really a journalist, and let DB be the insider journalist type. Bernstein is significantly more professional and less homerish (although last night calling Nashville a lesser team than the Kings was a bit laughable). But Hoven wants to present himself as an Elliot Friedman journalist, and will die on that hill. He even goes out of his way to say how "objective and honest" he is, before beginning a pro-Kings rant, he did that last night when he insisted that Blake has only had 1 coaching hire and he also did it before tearing into Lombardi's final 3 years in the article he wrote, while conveniently saying nothing about Blake.

Just say you are an opinion guy and not a journalist, you are already Skip Bayless in the eyes of a good chunk of the fan-base, just embrace it completely.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

I agree with you on the bolded. The Kings haven't revoked credentials from The LA Daily News, The Athletic or The Hockey News. Problem we have is that googling the first guy gets you nowhere and the other two are covering both teams in SoCal so how dedicated is the coverage?

That takes me back to Hoven, as it always does. He has replaced LAKI. It used to be "Hammond said..." and then "Rosen said..." but now it is "Hoven said...". Even though the former two were employed by the Kings (was Hammond originally employed by the Kings?), they are both actually journalist and portrayed a level of professionalism in that regard, even if they were used by Management of that era to craft narratives (the "get used to Cammalleri not being here" movement being one that jumps to mind). There isn't anything wrong with Hoven reporting what he is told as the other two did, but he carries water for Management nonstop when he is not "reporting". That is his right to do so but that is a problem:

- The line between journalism and opinion is too blurred with him because he is not a journalist but appears to be one based on the access given.
- There is no way someone who has been a fan for as long as he has can honestly believe that everything is fine.

Good for Hoven to be a fan and then get to have direct access to the team while getting the chance to profit off of it via, I assume, advertising on the pod and website. Good for you as well: I'm sure there is a sense of jealousy amongst some who criticize fans who made their way into having access since it feels like a poster on here all of a sudden becoming a beat writer.

But at the end of the day, nobody who isn't backed by an actual media organization is going to bite the hand that feeds. If you are as into the Kings as you or Hoven are, this is some dream type stuff so of course you are going to look out for #1. While you don't do any disservice, IMO, Hoven has somehow made himself into the de facto primary beat writer with people taking whatever he says as gospel and, since he is not going to bite the hand that feeds, that leads to him being a propogandist for existing Management.

What's interesting about the LAKI pathway is that initially, it was something no one else was doing--an inside reporter with a completely transparent look and extremely fair editorializing from good journalists.

Bless Dooley who I like, he's not that. He's basically an LAK fact reporter. Nothing wrong with that, but it shows what a long way they've come from "inside access for hardcore fans" to "lol dog calendars, and don't you dare ask hard questions or im gonna give you the f*** you smirk with no substantive answer"

 

[King'sPawn]

@Herby

I didn't want to quote the entire post. I am just going to say this.

Regarding Yannetti, I think that while he's an incredibly thoughtful dude, he also runs his mouth at times faster than he's thinking, and he has sometimes caught himself.

I do remember Oscar Moller was rushed. Lombardi admitted he was rushed. I believe back when they felt they rushed him they overcorrected and generally tried to learn from it, hence the belief that they've always done it this way. Because for all intents and purposes, they probably feel they have.

Do I agree that they've slow-boiled EVERY prospect since he's joined? No. Do I think he's lying? I don't think so. I think at worst, he's overlooking exceptions and the general rule even goes back to Lombardi saying "you can never over-prepare a prospect." It's possible that was the general attitude of the Lombardi regime as well. And maybe Yannetti's interpretation of the question, or his perception of the circumstances, led to his response.

Would it be nice if Hoven pushed back on that? As someone who is critical of the development process, sure. But as I said, if Hoven takes him for his word (not saying he does definitively, as I don't know, but I'm talking about his personality altogether), why would I expect him to push back or argue?

I've already said plenty about Hoven, MM, my plans of content going forward and my attempts and hope to give more of you a better experience and feeling that you are heard. Of course, I still hope that happens, but I'm not going to dedicate time trying to change your minds when ultimately, that will only happen over time, if it happens at all.

 

[DoktorJeep]

No. I think you have a habit of being incredibly literal and not allowing for the possibility of turns of phrase or the natural flourishes that occur within extemporaneous speech.

If I say there's literally millions of examples of this I would expect people to understand that I'm using hyperbole... yet I could also be called "a liar" if one were to apply a totally literal interpretation.

Additionally... There's a difference between the Kings giving direct instructions to people and people using their own social awareness to realize that if they criticize certain players or organizations it might influence their relationships.

Nobody ever told me to stop using profanity on All The Kings Men. That was a decision I made independently based on how I felt I should behave as my role grew. Was that influenced by the Kings?

I dunno... but nobody TOLD me to do it.

Have you paid any attention to Andrew Knoll? Or Eric Stephens? Or Austin Stanovich?

There have been plenty of explicit criticisms of the organization and none of them have had their access revoked or reduced.

I recommend a reading of Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky.

 

[Bandit]

I recommend a reading of Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky.

How about Manufacturing Progress by BLuc?