JFTC:Brutal Recap of Last Season

[bland]

I’ll agree with you there. If I had to choose the single biggest mistake of the last decade, it is stripping Brown of his captaincy instead of firing Sutter.

Nonsense. Dustin Brown played his way off of what he thought was his birthright and pouted for two years. Sutter had him pegged properly and the team prospered for it. He didn't deserve that captaincy, it was handed to him, and Lombardi correctly knew that the team badly needed leadership and accountability on ice and brought in a series of known leaders and competitors to do what he had learned his core couldn't.

It's no surprise that the team suffered as those leaders all departed. And Brown is very much part of the "leadership"group that quit on Terry Murray, Darryl Sutter, John Stevens and never showed up for Willie Desjardins. Any leadership qualities attributed to Dustin Brown are highly debatable.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Nonsense. Dustin Brown played his way off of what he thought was his birthright and pouted for two years. Sutter had him pegged properly and the team prospered for it. He didn't deserve that captaincy, it was handed to him, and Lombardi correctly knew that the team badly needed leadership and accountability on ice and brought in a series of known leaders and competitors to do what he had learned his core couldn't.

It's no surprise that the team suffered as those leaders all departed. And Brown is very much part of the "leadership"group that quit on Terry Murray, Darryl Sutter, John Stevens and never showed up for Willie Desjardins. Any leadership qualities attributed to Dustin Brown are highly debatable.

It's so weird that he was the Captain and a major driving force behind at least the first Cup then, given he was a no good loser at that point huh? Or did that just happen after the Cup runs were over?

Brown is widely lauded by just about everyone in hockey about his leadership qualities and has been for his entire career. Circumstantial evidence isn't going to carry nearly as much weight as more than a decade of testimony and evidence.

 

[King'sPawn]

It's so weird that he was the Captain and a major driving force behind at least the first Cup then, given he was a no good loser at that point huh? Or did that just happen after the Cup runs were over?

Brown is widely lauded by just about everyone in hockey about his leadership qualities and has been for his entire career. Circumstantial evidence isn't going to carry nearly as much weight as more than a decade of testimony and evidence.

Plus, Lombardi told me personally how Brown was coming to development camps even as an established player, and was telling them what it takes to be a professional, and calling him captain material before he was a captain. People who followed my posts back then would know he was going to be the next captain.

While Brown and other leaders may be fed up, and maybe they're jaded with bad attitudes (I don't pretend to know), acting as though Brown lacked leadership the entire time is patently false.

 

[kilowatt]

Nonsense. Dustin Brown played his way off of what he thought was his birthright and pouted for two years. Sutter had him pegged properly and the team prospered for it. He didn't deserve that captaincy, it was handed to him, and Lombardi correctly knew that the team badly needed leadership and accountability on ice and brought in a series of known leaders and competitors to do what he had learned his core couldn't.

It's no surprise that the team suffered as those leaders all departed. And Brown is very much part of the "leadership"group that quit on Terry Murray, Darryl Sutter, John Stevens and never showed up for Willie Desjardins. Any leadership qualities attributed to Dustin Brown are highly debatable.

What even is this? This heat’s getting to some your heads.

 

[YP44]

Nonsense. Dustin Brown played his way off of what he thought was his birthright and pouted for two years. Sutter had him pegged properly and the team prospered for it. He didn't deserve that captaincy, it was handed to him, and Lombardi correctly knew that the team badly needed leadership and accountability on ice and brought in a series of known leaders and competitors to do what he had learned his core couldn't.

It's no surprise that the team suffered as those leaders all departed. And Brown is very much part of the "leadership"group that quit on Terry Murray, Darryl Sutter, John Stevens and never showed up for Willie Desjardins. Any leadership qualities attributed to Dustin Brown are highly debatable.

why is brown often talked about by other players as being a great leader. his name comes up often when he is not even prompted.

I usually can see both sides of every coin but this I just do not know about.

 

[DoktorJeep]

I attribute the loss of Cernak to be due to poor asset management. At that time, guys like Forbort and McNabb were being given more opportunities. Probably because they were a little older and higher profile.

Plus they fit the mold of what management wanted when it comes to D prospects. All mistakes in hindsight.

As for Brown, part of the reason Toffoli has under achieved is due to Brown being attached to Kopitar. It was John Stevens biggest failure to not develop Pearson, Kopitar and Toffoli into the Kings top line.

 

[YP44]

I attribute the loss of Cernak to be due to poor asset management. At that time, guys like Forbort and McNabb were being given more opportunities. Probably because they were a little older and higher profile.

Plus they fit the mold of what management wanted when it comes to D prospects. All mistakes in hindsight.

As for Brown, part of the reason Toffoli has under achieved is due to Brown being attached to Kopitar. It was John Stevens biggest failure to not develop Pearson, Kopitar and Toffoli into the Kings top line.

Did Pearson and Toffoli even push for it though? What did they show to deserve even getting that chance. Year 1 of stevens he played his lineup correctly and it is hard to dispute given the career years by some of the kings players. Year 2 he was given zero leash and punted before really being able to tinker with the lineup.

At one point I thought Pearson was going to be my favorite king but he just really fell off.

 

[KINGS17]

Nonsense. Dustin Brown played his way off of what he thought was his birthright and pouted for two years. Sutter had him pegged properly and the team prospered for it. He didn't deserve that captaincy, it was handed to him, and Lombardi correctly knew that the team badly needed leadership and accountability on ice and brought in a series of known leaders and competitors to do what he had learned his core couldn't.

It's no surprise that the team suffered as those leaders all departed. And Brown is very much part of the "leadership"group that quit on Terry Murray, Darryl Sutter, John Stevens and never showed up for Willie Desjardins. Any leadership qualities attributed to Dustin Brown are highly debatable.

I know you have always been extremely critical of Brown. I would suggest that for you, it is more of a style issue than it is of substance. I don't think Brown was a perfect captain by any means, but I do think he was the best choice for the organization at the time the selection was made.

He became the captain after Rob Blake's final departure. The idea Blake was made captain again after Norstrom's departure was a complete joke in my opinion. At the time Dean wanted a captain who was of the same generation as the core he hoped would win a Stanley Cup. There really were no other candidates other than Brown who made sense when you look at the roster in 2008-09. At that point I think Brown deserved the captaincy.

It turned out that the core of Brown, Kopitar, Doughty, and Quick either weren't mature enough or didn't have the "leadership chops" to get the Kings where they needed to go in the time they had left without some more veteran leadership. Nothing wrong with Dean recognizing that and doing something about it by bringing in Williams, Mitchell, Richards, etc.

Dean made a calculated gamble that Brown, Kopitar, and Doughty would learn from these guys and it didn't quite work out. Of the names I mentioned I think Quick and Brown are far superior in leadership skills over Kopitar and Doughty.

 

[BigKing]

If you are negative on Blake from the start, like myself, I'm going to see the glass half empty while those that like him or just generally don't want to bash anything Kings related--except for the 4th line--are going to preach the "give him more time and it is Dean's mess" line.

I agree he needs more time since we are now rebuilding, or at least acting like it. I have no problem admitting that Dean made numerous errors at the start but he wasn't preaching "we are contenders" right off the hop. Equating Kovalchuk to Preissing and Nagy is a false equivalency as the former was added as the missing piece while the latter two were used to fill out the roster for a team that was not going to contend.

In one of the responses to me, Blake is given credit for the 2018 season. Why? That is Dean's team. Also, the argument that he wasn't "all-in" or whatever because he didn't trade futures at the TDL that year doesn't sway me into thinking he grossly miscalculated where the roster was at: Carter was the TDL acquisition and then he threw $6MM a year to a guy in the off-season that was 35 and hadn't played in the league for four seasons. You only do that if you think you are a contender: they finished next to last in the entire league. That would be massively misjudging the roster, no? There is also way too much smoke to the Patches rumor to not believe it was happening: the only real question is how much of the deal going to Montreal was futures. Of course, if you think you are a contender then you aren't adding Patches at the expense of someone like Muzzin.

If all you care about is that he keeps draft picks, then he has done a great job. I'm glad he has but, again, no GM should be looking at the prospect pool going into the 2018 season and the team on the ice thinking they should keep moving futures. Like, kudos for looking both ways before crossing the street like you should.

In regards to Kovalchuk, why do I care if he leads the team in scoring this season? What are they going to accomplish as a team? As for it "only costing money", maybe AEG is cool with buying out Marleau for a 1st round pick if they aren't tied to Kovy for the next two seasons. It is still an opportunity cost associated with "just money". I say all of this as someone who doesn't dislike Kovalchuk.

That brings me to one of my favorite things on HF: the "in hindsight" argument. How else are we supposed to judge things? An action is taken, there is a result, and it is judged. The Sekera trade made sense and the Lucic one could be argued at the time. Cernak at the time wasn't such a big deal to most. In hindsight though, they are ammunition to explain why DL had to be fired. So, with Rob, his signature moves so far (Stevens and Kovalchuk) were or currently are mistakes and his first ever draft pick is currently looking like a misfire as well. Even the Phaneuf trade looks bad since Gaborik could be on LTIR like many figured he eventually would be.

So the positives are keeping picks, signing NCAA FAs and the Muzzin trade. All of these look great right now because we can't use hindsight yet since the results are TBD. So, Rob has been the GM for two years and the only tangible results at the NHL level are being swept out of the playoffs and one of the worst seasons in Kings history with the latter occurring when he was trying to win: not tank. I mean, that isn't good.

If you want to make up excuses for it and/or why he did what he did, that's totally cool. I've done the same for Lombardi since the reasoning for all of his poor moves after 2014 weren't all faulty. Sound reasoning or not, DL was wrong and Blake has been wrong. It is a results oriented business and the tangible results aren't good so far. I'm not an asshole for saying that since, at the same time I'm criticizing him, I'm also saying I like everything from the Muzzin trade on. There definitely isn't a "In Blake I Trust" feeling because I do fear Luc/AEG involvement forcing a big move to early, but I'm hoping he keeps up the little streak he is on from Muzzin, to the draft and now the Petersen signing.

If he hits on these prospects in a big way, the blunders of his first couple of years won't matter: just like with Dean. Unfortunately, all I have to judge him on is his record so far and it is by no means a great one.

 

[crassbonanza]

Unfortunately, all I have to judge him on is his record so far and it is by no means a great one.

Your conclusion seem to be the exact opposite of your entire post. You begin the post by admitting that you are biased against Blake, so from the get go we know that you are not solely judging him by his performance. Then you continue on to say that we can't judge Blake on the team having success in 2018, which is kind of huge portion of his performance to evaluate. Your next argument is about a rumored move that didn't even happen, so again you are not basing your analysis off of his performance. You then continue on to play down the horrible Dean trades as hindsight, so you appear to not want to judge him on his performance in this case. Also, all of those trades were highly questioned at the time, when the Kings traded for Sekera, Richards was in the A and the team was not in a playoff spot. When the Lucic trade happened, people were ripping that trade to pieces, that was way too much to trade for a 1 year rental. Same with Cernak, that was a pointless trade and most called it that at the time. Your next point is to handwave away the positive moves that Blake has done in keeping picks, signing college free agents and trading Muzzin, your reasoning is that you don't know how well the players will turn out. You literally go from critiquing the "in hindsight" argument in one paragraph to choosing to only judge Blake "in hindsight" in the very next one. You f***ing hate Blake, it's fine, but don't act like you are a neutral observer who is only judging Blake on his results.

 

[BigKing]

Your conclusion seem to be the exact opposite of your entire post. You begin the post by admitting that you are biased against Blake, so from the get go we know that you are not solely judging him by his performance. Then you continue on to say that we can't judge Blake on the team having success in 2018, which is kind of huge portion of his performance to evaluate. Your next argument is about a rumored move that didn't even happen, so again you are not basing your analysis off of his performance. You then continue on to play down the horrible Dean trades as hindsight, so you appear to not want to judge him on his performance in this case. Also, all of those trades were highly questioned at the time, when the Kings traded for Sekera, Richards was in the A and the team was not in a playoff spot. When the Lucic trade happened, people were ripping that trade to pieces, that was way too much to trade for a 1 year rental. Same with Cernak, that was a pointless trade and most called it that at the time. Your next point is to handwave away the positive moves that Blake has done in keeping picks, signing college free agents and trading Muzzin, your reasoning is that you don't know how well the players will turn out. You literally go from critiquing the "in hindsight" argument in one paragraph to choosing to only judge Blake "in hindsight" in the very next one. You ****ing hate Blake, it's fine, but don't act like you are a neutral observer who is only judging Blake on his results.

I don't like Rob Blake. Not hiding from it. I have given him credit where credit is due and I have criticized him when deserved. What am I not giving him credit for over his tenure and which of my criticisms are not valid? Again, I hope he is the best GM the Kings will ever have. I take no joy in how the last two years have played out but am really hoping he is better going forward.

He did nothing to the team in 2018 except for Iafallo. Nice signing that I have given him credit for closing even though that process was already well underway during DL's tenure. It was Dean's team. You know what, let's credit him for the Keumper signing as well. But, really, what kind of stamp did Blake put on that roster?

You stick to the Patches only being a rumor so you give no credence to it, even though it involves some of the most smoke ever seen in a rumor with the agent firing etc. That's fine. You have your stance on it, I have mine.

I'm not downplaying how bad the DL trades were in hindsight but rather the reasoning for them at the time and what the overall mood was. You are using the results to cloud your judgment of how most of us felt at the time of these trades. Sekera? Mother f***ing defending champs just reeled off seven straight wins and were "built for the playoffs". Replace Voynov with the best available defenseman and have the choice of the pick be this year or next? DL was still a wizard at that point and we all believed in these guys. In hindsight, yeah, it really sucked. Lucic trade was more divisive but many of us were stoked at the thought of having him on the team and felt the 2015 season was a fluke (Kopitar down year/95 point with a 2-15 OT & SO record) so let's go for it! You can say the Bishop trade was puzzling because of why Bishop but the actual Cernak piece was not seriously grieved over. In hindsight, all of them are horrible but, at the time, they weren't universally panned. So what's the point of bringing this up? Because Blake was wrong about Kovalchuk even though, at the time of the signing, it "only cost money"/the team just needs some more scoring/they held Vegas to 7 goals/Kopitar is a perennial Hart candidate/Carter scored at a 100 goal pace upon his return/JENNINGS TROPHY!!! So, yeah, tell me all of the reasoning why it was a good signing but, in hindsight, it was a total miss. He was wrong--in hindsight--just like Dean was. And if we want to talk about what was believed to be good or bad at the time of the move, there were many non-Kings fans that didn't think it was a good signing. The critique of "in hindsight" is when it used to dismiss the result. I in no way dismissed Dean's results: quite the opposite, actually.

Yes, keeping the picks, adding prospect FAs and bailing on Muzzin in the face of realizing this team is screwed are all good moves. Glad he has done them. He gets credit for it. I'm not hand waving away these "accomplishments", they just aren't "what a genius GM" moves. I'm being told Blake's strengths in light of my criticisms and was told in hindsight that his bad moves look bad. Well, no shit. If he was wrong, he was wrong. The only tangible results he has so far are not good. How can this be argued? The prospect pool is his best thing going and we do not know if it will actually be good, plus the fact can't be ignored that his first ever pick can't even skate. Dave Taylor had quite the stable of 1st round picks at one time as well. That said, I'm optimistic about it. I have to be since it is the only hope. I'm also putting my money where my mouth is and still shelling out for seats. I've said I like what he has done since the Muzzin trade and I'm cautiously optimistic moving forward. Doesn't mean he gets a free pass for his first two seasons whether I like the guy or not. Shit man...I want to f***ing love the guy!

So, hell yes I am judging him so far on his results. Right now, he's some girl you married that is set to inherit a small fortune when her parents pass but she's a complete pain in the ass to deal with and be around in the meantime. If that inheritance winds up not coming, then all you've got is a problem on your hands and you wasted the last several years of your life.

 

[tomd]

Right now, the statue of Gretzky could do the same thing that Blake and Luc are doing...which is to say nothing at all.

 

[KINGS17]

I don't like Rob Blake. Not hiding from it. I have given him credit where credit is due and I have criticized him when deserved. What am I not giving him credit for over his tenure and which of my criticisms are not valid? Again, I hope he is the best GM the Kings will ever have. I take no joy in how the last two years have played out but am really hoping he is better going forward.

He did nothing to the team in 2018 except for Iafallo. Nice signing that I have given him credit for closing even though that process was already well underway during DL's tenure. It was Dean's team. You know what, let's credit him for the Keumper signing as well. But, really, what kind of stamp did Blake put on that roster?

You stick to the Patches only being a rumor so you give no credence to it, even though it involves some of the most smoke ever seen in a rumor with the agent firing etc. That's fine. You have your stance on it, I have mine.

I'm not downplaying how bad the DL trades were in hindsight but rather the reasoning for them at the time and what the overall mood was. You are using the results to cloud your judgment of how most of us felt at the time of these trades. Sekera? Mother ****ing defending champs just reeled off seven straight wins and were "built for the playoffs". Replace Voynov with the best available defenseman and have the choice of the pick be this year or next? DL was still a wizard at that point and we all believed in these guys. In hindsight, yeah, it really sucked. Lucic trade was more divisive but many of us were stoked at the thought of having him on the team and felt the 2015 season was a fluke (Kopitar down year/95 point with a 2-15 OT & SO record) so let's go for it! You can say the Bishop trade was puzzling because of why Bishop but the actual Cernak piece was not seriously grieved over. In hindsight, all of them are horrible but, at the time, they weren't universally panned. So what's the point of bringing this up? Because Blake was wrong about Kovalchuk even though, at the time of the signing, it "only cost money"/the team just needs some more scoring/they held Vegas to 7 goals/Kopitar is a perennial Hart candidate/Carter scored at a 100 goal pace upon his return/JENNINGS TROPHY!!! So, yeah, tell me all of the reasoning why it was a good signing but, in hindsight, it was a total miss. He was wrong--in hindsight--just like Dean was. And if we want to talk about what was believed to be good or bad at the time of the move, there were many non-Kings fans that didn't think it was a good signing. The critique of "in hindsight" is when it used to dismiss the result. I in no way dismissed Dean's results: quite the opposite, actually.

Yes, keeping the picks, adding prospect FAs and bailing on Muzzin in the face of realizing this team is screwed are all good moves. Glad he has done them. He gets credit for it. I'm not hand waving away these "accomplishments", they just aren't "what a genius GM" moves. I'm being told Blake's strengths in light of my criticisms and was told in hindsight that his bad moves look bad. Well, no ****. If he was wrong, he was wrong. The only tangible results he has so far are not good. How can this be argued? The prospect pool is his best thing going and we do not know if it will actually be good, plus the fact can't be ignored that his first ever pick can't even skate. Dave Taylor had quite the stable of 1st round picks at one time as well. That said, I'm optimistic about it. I have to be since it is the only hope. I'm also putting my money where my mouth is and still shelling out for seats. I've said I like what he has done since the Muzzin trade and I'm cautiously optimistic moving forward. Doesn't mean he gets a free pass for his first two seasons whether I like the guy or not. **** man...I want to ****ing love the guy!

So, hell yes I am judging him so far on his results. Right now, he's some girl you married that is set to inherit a small fortune when her parents pass but she's a complete pain in the ass to deal with and be around in the meantime. If that inheritance winds up not coming, then all you've got is a problem on your hands and you wasted the last several years of your life.

Just one question. How long do you think it will take her parents to die?

 

[BigKing]

Just one question. How long do you think it will take her parents to die?

Hopefully within three years and the parents enlarge that fortune with shrewd investing until that time.

 

[crassbonanza]

You stick to the Patches only being a rumor so you give no credence to it, even though it involves some of the most smoke ever seen in a rumor with the agent firing etc. That's fine. You have your stance on it, I have mine.

Again, this isn't results based analysis. You don't know if the conversation happened, whether it was serious or even what parts were potentially involved if it did take place. There are no results to analyze, just rumors. How do you know that Bergevin wasn't leaking this to start a bidding war?

I'm not downplaying how bad the DL trades were in hindsight but rather the reasoning for them at the time and what the overall mood was. You are using the results to cloud your judgment of how most of us felt at the time of these trades. Sekera? Mother ****ing defending champs just reeled off seven straight wins and were "built for the playoffs". Replace Voynov with the best available defenseman and have the choice of the pick be this year or next? DL was still a wizard at that point and we all believed in these guys. In hindsight, yeah, it really sucked. Lucic trade was more divisive but many of us were stoked at the thought of having him on the team and felt the 2015 season was a fluke (Kopitar down year/95 point with a 2-15 OT & SO record) so let's go for it! You can say the Bishop trade was puzzling because of why Bishop but the actual Cernak piece was not seriously grieved over. In hindsight, all of them are horrible but, at the time, they weren't universally panned. So what's the point of bringing this up? Because Blake was wrong about Kovalchuk even though, at the time of the signing, it "only cost money"/the team just needs some more scoring/they held Vegas to 7 goals/Kopitar is a perennial Hart candidate/Carter scored at a 100 goal pace upon his return/JENNINGS TROPHY!!! So, yeah, tell me all of the reasoning why it was a good signing but, in hindsight, it was a total miss. He was wrong--in hindsight--just like Dean was. And if we want to talk about what was believed to be good or bad at the time of the move, there were many non-Kings fans that didn't think it was a good signing. The critique of "in hindsight" is when it used to dismiss the result. I in no way dismissed Dean's results: quite the opposite, actually.

Those were not consider amazing huge wins at the time that are just viewed negatively in hindsight. Look at the Bishop/Cernak trade thread from our board, some of the responses just on the first page "More wasted assets with a team going nowhere fast", "Reserving judgement, but at first glance, what a waste of assets" and my favorite was from some poster named Bigking who said "Horrific at first blush. What a joke". Sekera had people excited, but most recognized that it was a huge risk and extremely costly. Most felt it was an overpayment, it was not in any way all excitement. Lucic trade was the same.

Yes, keeping the picks, adding prospect FAs and bailing on Muzzin in the face of realizing this team is screwed are all good moves. Glad he has done them. He gets credit for it. I'm not hand waving away these "accomplishments", they just aren't "what a genius GM" moves. I'm being told Blake's strengths in light of my criticisms and was told in hindsight that his bad moves look bad. Well, no ****. If he was wrong, he was wrong. The only tangible results he has so far are not good. How can this be argued? The prospect pool is his best thing going and we do not know if it will actually be good, plus the fact can't be ignored that his first ever pick can't even skate. Dave Taylor had quite the stable of 1st round picks at one time as well. That said, I'm optimistic about it. I have to be since it is the only hope. I'm also putting my money where my mouth is and still shelling out for seats. I've said I like what he has done since the Muzzin trade and I'm cautiously optimistic moving forward. Doesn't mean he gets a free pass for his first two seasons whether I like the guy or not. **** man...I want to ****ing love the guy!

Turning a bottom of the league prospect pool into one that is generally considered top 5 in just a couple of seasons is extremely impressive. If you are judging based on results, then you would acknowledge that he has been steadfast regarding rebuilding the pipeline and he has done so very well. Of course in "hindsight" some of those prospect might not play out, but his ability to fill the pool so rapidly with high end prospects has to be recognized if you are judging a GM based on results.

So, hell yes I am judging him so far on his results. Right now, he's some girl you married that is set to inherit a small fortune when her parents pass but she's a complete pain in the ass to deal with and be around in the meantime. If that inheritance winds up not coming, then all you've got is a problem on your hands and you wasted the last several years of your life.

No, you are not judging him based on results, you are choosing to chase your bias when analyzing him. As for your second part, you basically are just going to be miserable as long as he is the GM? Are you going to be sitting their bitching if the Kings win the cup with him as GM? Because that is what it sounds like and that really doesn't seem all that fun.

 

[TruKingFan]

Nonsense. Dustin Brown played his way off of what he thought was his birthright and pouted for two years. Sutter had him pegged properly and the team prospered for it. He didn't deserve that captaincy, it was handed to him, and Lombardi correctly knew that the team badly needed leadership and accountability on ice and brought in a series of known leaders and competitors to do what he had learned his core couldn't.

It's no surprise that the team suffered as those leaders all departed. And Brown is very much part of the "leadership"group that quit on Terry Murray, Darryl Sutter, John Stevens and never showed up for Willie Desjardins. Any leadership qualities attributed to Dustin Brown are highly debatable.

Cool story bro. Unfortunately, your BS is even stickier away from LGK. LMAO.

 

[damacles1156]

You guys are way overthinking the Brown situation. His resurgence is due to a couple of factors going on. It's not all due to "Oh Sutter was a meanie and Brown hated him". It has more to do with Brown not being asked to hit everything in sight FULL force, he is able to simply play the game and save his energy for offense. Do the Kings still hit teams ? yes they do most hockey teams hit, But are the Kings hard to play against and grind you down ? NO. The Kings haven't been hard to play against for about three seasons now.

The style of play on the ice and the Kings overall asking Brown not be the hitter/hard to play against 20 year old Brown is what changed Brown's prospects.

 

[damacles1156]

I am just curious what type of team Blake wants. Cause that hasn't been effectively communicated, and the NHL-AHL team suffered greatly for it last year with no direction from up top.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You guys are way overthinking the Brown situation. His resurgence is due to a couple of factors going on. It's not all due to "Oh Sutter was a meanie and Brown hated him". It has more to do with Brown not being asked to hit everything in sight FULL force, he is able to simply play the game and save his energy for offense. Do the Kings still hit teams ? yes they do most hockey teams hit, But are the Kings hard to play against and grind you down ? NO. The Kings haven't been hard to play against for about three seasons now.

The style of play on the ice and the Kings overall asking Brown not be the hitter/hard to play against 20 year old Brown is what changed Brown's prospects.

I think you're overthinking the Brown situation.

Observe his ice time starting from 2013-14.
Dustin Brown Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

Brown's ice time dropped significantly. He went from averaging 19:30 of ice time in 2012-13 to 15-16 minutes. In addition to cutting his ice time, he was also stripped of his captaincy.

Then a coaching change is made and Brown's ice time jumps back up to 19-20 minutes, as does his production.

I have a feeling that may have slightly impacted his offensive numbers, wouldn't you agree?

 

[BigKing]

Again, this isn't results based analysis. You don't know if the conversation happened, whether it was serious or even what parts were potentially involved if it did take place. There are no results to analyze, just rumors. How do you know that Bergevin wasn't leaking this to start a bidding war?



Those were not consider amazing huge wins at the time that are just viewed negatively in hindsight. Look at the Bishop/Cernak trade thread from our board, some of the responses just on the first page "More wasted assets with a team going nowhere fast", "Reserving judgement, but at first glance, what a waste of assets" and my favorite was from some poster named Bigking who said "Horrific at first blush. What a joke". Sekera had people excited, but most recognized that it was a huge risk and extremely costly. Most felt it was an overpayment, it was not in any way all excitement. Lucic trade was the same.



Turning a bottom of the league prospect pool into one that is generally considered top 5 in just a couple of seasons is extremely impressive. If you are judging based on results, then you would acknowledge that he has been steadfast regarding rebuilding the pipeline and he has done so very well. Of course in "hindsight" some of those prospect might not play out, but his ability to fill the pool so rapidly with high end prospects has to be recognized if you are judging a GM based on results.



No, you are not judging him based on results, you are choosing to chase your bias when analyzing him. As for your second part, you basically are just going to be miserable as long as he is the GM? Are you going to be sitting their *****ing if the Kings win the cup with him as GM? Because that is what it sounds like and that really doesn't seem all that fun.

I said we agree to disagree on the Patches thing. I'm not burning him at the cross over it but it does help lead to my feelings of uneasiness with sticking to a plan. Again, I have no issue with your stance on it.

I've been on record for the Bishop trade that Cernak was either a horrible pick or it was a horrible trade. Appears to be the latter. That being said, my point is that it wasn't a universal mourning of the loss of Cernak but more of what he was traded for. As already mentioned, the reasoning behind Dean's poor moves became weaker the further removed from 2014 but, even if they made sense at the time, they were wrong and it cost him his job because mistakes are mistakes. The Bishop trade made the least amount of sense and, really, I chalk it up to our scouting department and Dean souring on him. It was also strange that Cernak had negative comments about the Kings last season so something was amiss with him and the team during his time here.

Once again, kudos on keeping the picks and for turning around the prospect pool. Three consecutive drafts of doing so--while also nabbing a 1st and two solid prospects for Muzzin--will do that. So will finishing next to last in the NHL when you were expecting to be a contender. I'm glad they picked #5OA last season, it is just funny that Blake didn't plan on being there but Turcotte is one of the biggest feathers in his cap right now. Regardless, the prospect side of it is all good things but, again, you want me to judge that result. On paper, it is awesome but it is still a huge TBD. The best thing he has done is a TBD while the tangible results at the moment haven't been good. Why is this an argument? That pool is also propped up by Glass Vilardi. Huge TBD.

I'm not chasing my bias but you are clearly showing yours because you always have an excuse for the bad things he has done while somehow stating that I'm not judging him on the results when the black/white results so far are poor. You are a glass half-full guy with this franchise in every aspect and that is fine. Even with my crazy bias, I'm not shitting on him for what he has done since the Muzzin trade or for keeping picks and signing prospect FAs. If this doesn't pan out though, woah boy.

Your bias also appears to cloud your reading comprehension. I will not be miserable during his time as GM unless he is a failure. I said I want to love the guy, hope he is the best GM we ever have and am cautiously optimistic. It doesn't sound at all like what you claim because, yes, I am judging him on tangible results and they aren't too hot so far. Am I giving him an F? You could argue that at the NHL level since last season was one of the worst in franchise history--along with Kovy and the coaching debacle--but I can't give him an F overall due to, yes, the prospect side of the equation. Does that bring him up to a C? Let's say it does. Do you want your GM to be graded at a C? Absolutely not.

 

[johnjm22]

He didn't deserve that captaincy, it was handed to him,

Brown is very much part of the "leadership"group that quit on Terry Murray, Darryl Sutter, John Stevens and never showed up for Willie Desjardins.

At the time Dean wanted a captain who was of the same generation as the core he hoped would win a Stanley Cup. There really were no other candidates other than Brown who made sense when you look at the roster in 2008-09. At that point I think Brown deserved the captaincy.

It turned out that the core of Brown, Kopitar, Doughty, and Quick either weren't mature enough or didn't have the "leadership chops" to get the Kings where they needed to go in the time they had left without some more veteran leadership. Nothing wrong with Dean recognizing that and doing something about it by bringing in Williams, Mitchell, Richards, etc.

Dean made a calculated gamble that Brown, Kopitar, and Doughty would learn from these guys and it didn't quite work out. Of the names I mentioned I think Quick and Brown are far superior in leadership skills over Kopitar and Doughty.

Brown didn't have the captaincy handed to him, and it wasn't simply because they're "were no other candidates".

When Brown first came to the Kings and was thrown into the NHL as an 18 year old it was a very difficult experience for him. The King's locker room was a bad environment. No one went out of their way to help the young players transition to the NHL. Supposedly Brown even got made fun of because his speech and his wife not being attractive enough (I think this was mostly Avery).

By the time Lombardi arrived Brown had taken it upon himself to make sure young players didn't have the same bad experience he did. He would talk to all the young players. Help them with anything they needed, give them guidance etc. As @King'sPawn pointed out, Dustin was going to development camp in the summer reaching out to the young guys.

How many time did Stoll or Williams or Greene or Richards or Mitchell do this?

Brown WANTED the captaincy. It was obvious to anyone in the organization at the time. DL also recognized Brown was dedicated and mature on and off the ice. You're never going to hear about Brown getting caught with drugs, or having a reputation as a party guy, or not being in shape.

Brown was selected as captain because it made perfect sense and it was a great choice.

Brown as a player, more than any other, is the one who initiated the culture change for the Kings.

 

[Butch 19]

WTF is JFTC?

 

[Choralone]

WTF is JFTC?

Jewels from the Crown, on SBNation. They lost me years ago when new writers took a hard left into SJW activism in hockey writing. My politics are pretty liberal, and while I agreed with a number of their views, man were they needlessly confrontational and self-righteous. And I still don't understand why a hockey site was the preferred venue for their activism. I don't think the site has been like that for a long time, but I went from a daily reader to a semi-annual one.

 

[Lt Dan]

WTF is JFTC?

**** f***ing **** **********

 

[crassbonanza]

I'm not chasing my bias but you are clearly showing yours because you always have an excuse for the bad things he has done while somehow stating that I'm not judging him on the results when the black/white results so far are poor. You are a glass half-full guy with this franchise in every aspect and that is fine. Even with my crazy bias, I'm not ****ting on him for what he has done since the Muzzin trade or for keeping picks and signing prospect FAs. If this doesn't pan out though, woah boy.

I don't have a bias though. I don't like some things Blake has done, I've been critical of the Willie hire and really do not like his handling of the Kovalchuk situation. I didn't like that he waited for so long to address the tire fire of a season and that he was not more hands on with Willie regarding ice time. There was no reason that Dewey and Kopi should have been logging those huge minutes in a disaster of a season. As for Luc, I have been very clear that damn near every off ice decision the franchise has made lately has been horrid. The jerseys, the in arena presentation, the TV broadcast, the radio broadcast(or lack there of), the 'enough' nonsense; I do think this franchise has some major failings.

Your bias also appears to cloud your reading comprehension. I will not be miserable during his time as GM unless he is a failure. I said I want to love the guy, hope he is the best GM we ever have and am cautiously optimistic. It doesn't sound at all like what you claim because, yes, I am judging him on tangible results and they aren't too hot so far. Am I giving him an F? You could argue that at the NHL level since last season was one of the worst in franchise history--along with Kovy and the coaching debacle--but I can't give him an F overall due to, yes, the prospect side of the equation. Does that bring him up to a C? Let's say it does. Do you want your GM to be graded at a C? Absolutely not.

Haha, my point about being miserable was in reference to your hypothetical scenario of marrying a wife and being miserable while waiting for her inheritance. You basically said you were going to be miserable with him as GM while waiting for the prospects to join the team and if they aren't good it will be even worse. It seems like you would never find him to be a good GM even if the team was successful.

I don't want a GM with a C grade, but I also think patience is important with a GM, he needs time to establish his imprint. I like that there are thus far no long term issues that have been created; no early draft picks traded and no long term free agents signed. I like that the pipeline has been restocked and there is something exciting to look forward to. If those things were not the case then I would totally be behind you with regards to Blake, but with those major things progressing in the right direction I think we need to wait a bit before calling him a failure.