Confirmed with Link: Kings Sign Kopitar (2 Years/ $7m AAV)

[King'sPawn]

Not even close to what they had with Kopitar, Doughty and Quick, not even close.

One was finishing off a successful rebuilding of the franchise and one was abandoning a rebuild to try and win again with old players.

It's hilarious how the point continuously gets missed despite them arguing throughout the year over it.

But I should correct you on something. The Kings never rebuilt with Kopitar, Doughty, and Quick during the Lombardi era. None of them are McDavid or Matthews players

 

[Herby]

It is 20/20, because the moves that were made, didn't pan out, do you think anyone is talking about Center depth or the PLD if any move the draft picks panned out, as you have said in the past, they haven't panned out....

People lament, OMG the goaltending but ignore the fact that he took 5 goaltenders in 7 drafts....that's not ignoring the problem, it's not necessarily fixing it unless you get the right player, but it sure as hell ain't ignoring it

But nobody wants to place any blame on him for those draft picks not working?

Turcotte is blamed on injuries, even though when he has played he hasn't ever looked like a Top 5 pick. But even if it is injuries, how much blame should the GM get for pulling a player who had 1 goal in conference play in the NCAA and was clearly not physically developed enough to play pro hockey and sticking him in the AHL as a teenager when no one else would have. You now say this is "hindsight" and "how could Blake know" when the risks of this move were talked about here (including the potential to get injured), you and I debated it quite a bit, but now since Blake was wrong we can't bring it up because it was "hindsight".

Same thing with QB, nobody else in the league would have handled him like that. The concerns that were shared by many on this board (which you disagreed with) was that playing an 18 year old in the AHL was so unproven that it had the chance to do serious damage to a player the Kings used the #2 pick on. Here we are now, 3 years later and Byfield has yet to hit double digit goals in 100 NHL games and isn't even playing center. He got nothing out of that season, it was a total waste that caused great damage to his development but we can't talk about it now because its "hindsight", just like with Turcotte all the bad decisions that many knew were bad at the time are unfair to bring up.

Blake made the horrific decision to pull Turcotte and put Byfield in the AHL, the results have been unsurprisingly awful. But hey Blake offered Danault the most money so he is "winning the off-season" right?

I can give praise too, I think the PLD trade was a great move, maybe Blake's best as GM. But most of these moves were made as a result of failures at the draft table/with the development.

 

[Sparky206]

But nobody wants to place any blame on him for those draft picks not working?

Turcotte is blamed on injuries, even though when he has played he hasn't ever looked like a Top 5 pick. But even if it is injuries, how much blame should the GM get for pulling a player who had 1 goal in conference play in the NCAA and was clearly not physically developed enough to play pro hockey and sticking him in the AHL as a teenager when no one else would have. You now say this is "hindsight" and "how could Blake know" when the risks of this move were talked about here (including the potential to get injured), you and I debated it quite a bit, but now since Blake was wrong we can't bring it up because it was "hindsight".

Same thing with QB, nobody else in the league would have handled him like that. The concerns that were shared by many on this board (which you disagreed with) was that playing an 18 year old in the AHL was so unproven that it had the chance to do serious damage to a player the Kings used the #2 pick on. Here we are now, 3 years later and Byfield has yet to hit double digit goals in 100 NHL games and isn't even playing center. He got nothing out of that season, it was a total waste that caused great damage to his development but we can't talk about it now because its "hindsight", just like with Turcotte all the bad decisions that many knew were bad at the time are unfair to bring up.

Blake made the horrific decision to pull Turcotte and put Byfield in the AHL, the results have been unsurprisingly awful. But hey Blake offered Danault the most money so he is "winning the off-season" right?

I can give praise too, I think the PLD trade was a great move, maybe Blake's best as GM. But most of these moves were made as a result of failures at the draft table/with the development.

So where was he supposed to play Byfield?

 

[Herby]

So where was he supposed to play Byfield?

Where the vast majority of players taken that high played their D+1 season, the NHL.

Made a lot more sense than having a guy with no future at C playing 2C that season.

 

[FSL KINGS]

It's hilarious how the point continuously gets missed despite them arguing throughout the year over it.

But I should correct you on something. The Kings never rebuilt with Kopitar, Doughty, and Quick during the Lombardi era. None of them are McDavid or Matthews players

Thought the whole reason to tank like the Oilers is to eventually land a Mcdavid. If it's possible to win a cup with just good players & a strong team, then why are we convinced that the rebuild was done incorrectly?

King's only had Kopitar & Brown that they drafted in the top6. After watching Vegas win with only one guy they drafted on the ice, why does anyone really care about the draft? Bets on Blake trading next year's first on a goalie?

Eichel, RoR, B. Screen all good cup winning centers that were traded for.
TB's best center was drafted in the 3rd round? Their best wing was late 2nd round.
Kadri, 100 point 2C was traded for & had issues getting suspended in the playoffs at the time of the trade.

Maybe the point of building assets was to trade Schenn & Simmons for a piece the team needs.

 

[Sol]

Thought the whole reason to tank like the Oilers is to eventually land a Mcdavid. If it's possible to win a cup with just good players & a strong team, then why are we convinced that the rebuild was done incorrectly?

King's only had Kopitar & Brown that they drafted in the top6. After watching Vegas win with only one guy they drafted on the ice, why does anyone really care about the draft? Bets on Blake trading next year's first on a goalie?

Eichel, RoR, B. Screen all good cup winning centers that were traded for.
TB's best center was drafted in the 3rd round? Their best wing was late 2nd round.
Kadri, 100 point 2C was traded for & had issues getting suspended in the playoffs at the time of the trade.

Maybe the point of building assets was to trade Schenn & Simmons for a piece the team needs.

I’m so curious about this line of thinking because it’s truly baffling to me.

How do you know these players haven’t planned out when they haven’t really been given a shot to shine?c

Do I think Byfield is a bad player ? Yeah. You know what would really seal the deal in my observation? Him being given top 6 center minutes for a full season and giving him a chance to really lose his spot.

You want to know what’s funny ? The people who think Byfield is good want the same thing, a chance to prove himself a good player and blossom potentially.

What the common denominator here is that you have to let these players lose their spots. Not take it from them before they get to try it.

 

[Sol]

I personally can’t wait for us to one-up the predators with three “Off Season Champions” banners headed to the rafters.

It’s the kinda thing a fan really lives for.

That’s the funniest part in all of this. I remember back in the day we made fun of the Sharks and the preds for their regular season bullshit. Seems like we have more fans than I expected who are content with that or even prefer that.

 

[Statto]

I’m so curious about this line of thinking because it’s truly baffling to me.

How do you know these players haven’t planned out when they haven’t really been given a shot to shine?c

Do I think Byfield is a bad player ? Yeah. You know what would really seal the deal in my observation? Him being given top 6 center minutes for a full season and giving him a chance to really lose his spot.

You want to know what’s funny ? The people who think Byfield is good want the same thing, a chance to prove himself a good player and blossom potentially.

What the common denominator here is that you have to let these players lose their spots. Not take it from them before they get to try it.

Quite, you can’t succeed without also being in a position to fail. In terms of C I’d liked to see him there now but as things stand he will be at 1LW.

 

[King'sPawn]

Thought the whole reason to tank like the Oilers is to eventually land a Mcdavid. If it's possible to win a cup with just good players & a strong team, then why are we convinced that the rebuild was done incorrectly?

Because you actually have to build around some of your younger players that you have/acquire. That's the "build" part of the "rebuild."

The other reason why we're convinced? Because Yannetti said they went more for a retool than a rebuild. So, even a Kings exec didn't think they did a rebuild.

 

[bland]

Has Blake won more drafts or off-seasons?

 

[bland]

Maybe he has turned into a glass-is-half-full kind of guy after being threatened with long term outlooks in Columbus and Winnipeg

I don't think his attitude was ever a problem, its just that he is a low motor kind of guy who has gone long stretches of time without giving his best efforts with two organizations.

This isn't a star player, he is still very much a work in progress. He is paid like a finished product though, and combine that with a questionable drive, you have a concern.

 

[chris kontos]

Maybe they can get a banner raised in crypto.com arena as:
REG SEASON PARTICIPATION AWARD WINNER gm rob blake

 

[FSL KINGS]

I’m so curious about this line of thinking because it’s truly baffling to me.

How do you know these players haven’t planned out when they haven’t really been given a shot to shine?c

Do I think Byfield is a bad player ? Yeah. You know what would really seal the deal in my observation? Him being given top 6 center minutes for a full season and giving him a chance to really lose his spot.

You want to know what’s funny ? The people who think Byfield is good want the same thing, a chance to prove himself a good player and blossom potentially.

What the common denominator here is that you have to let these players lose their spots. Not take it from them before they get to try it.

Maybe Byfield wasn't given top6 minutes & earned them by being the best option for that position on the team? Byfield has a lot of room to grow his game. At 20 years old, I see no reason Byfield can't continue to improve. Some don't want to see it, because it doesn't fit their narrative.

Because you actually have to build around some of your younger players that you have/acquire. That's the "build" part of the "rebuild."

The other reason why we're convinced? Because Yannetti said they went more for a retool than a rebuild. So, even a Kings exec didn't think they did a rebuild.

Why do you need to build around a young core? Traditionally this was true. With young incomplete players getting rediculous contracts stacking cheap, young talent to push the team over the top is no longer an option.

Also, King's have quite a few young players that will be getting ice time. They don't have a young core to build around?

Why do a full rebuild when the team has plenty of useful assets & the ability to bring in pieces like Danault, Fiala & PL?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Making the playoffs: bad.
Tanking: good.

That's the only way to build a successful team. There is absolutely no other way to accomplish this.

 

[Schrute farms]

Drafting well: good
Developing players: good
Making playoffs and winning: good
Making playoffs but losing in 1st round each year: bad
Spending cap space wisely and managing such properly: good
Upward trajectory of team each year building toward a SC run: good
Having a bad GM/Coach: bad

 

[King'sPawn]

Why do you need to build around a young core? Traditionally this was true. With young incomplete players getting rediculous contracts stacking cheap, young talent to push the team over the top is no longer an option.

Also, King's have quite a few young players that will be getting ice time. They don't have a young core to build around?

Why do a full rebuild when the team has plenty of useful assets & the ability to bring in pieces like Danault, Fiala & PL?

You need to build around a young core because building takes time. So you need to strengthen and prepare the young players so they'll be able to lead the way when the team is ready. What do you think rebuilding is?

When the Kings are making decisions based on Kopitar's and Doughty's feelings, they aren't building around a young core.

You do a full rebuild to have long-term success instead of participation trophies for getting ousted in the first round of the playoffs perpetually.

 

[Schrute farms]

young players (i.e., cheap, inexpensive salary) are also needed for cap reasons. especially so if they are productive young players.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Drafting well: good
Developing players: good
Making playoffs and winning: good
Making playoffs but losing in 1st round each year: bad
Spending cap space wisely and managing such properly: good
Upward trajectory of team each year building toward a SC run: good
Having a bad GM/Coach: bad

The Kings made the playoffs after signing Phil Danault last summer, then followed it up with another strong season, and went out on a whimper in the postseason due to their lack of depth and pathetic special teams.

You don't think what they've added is going to help them address your third point of winning in the playoffs? What is it that they are trying to accomplish now by adding another top line center?

I guess improving year on year isn't upwards trajectory in some jaded eyes. Playing important games must be detrimental to young players.

 

[Schrute farms]

The Kings made the playoffs after signing Phil Danault last summer, then followed it up with another strong season, and went out on a whimper in the postseason due to their lack of depth and pathetic special teams.

You don't think what they've added is going to help them address your third point of winning in the playoffs? What is it that they are trying to accomplish now by adding another top line center?

I guess improving year on year isn't upwards trajectory in some jaded eyes. Playing important games must be detrimental to young players.

improving in one area while getting weaker in another is not an overall improvement. sure they have improved at 3C with the PLD add (likely PD moving down one spot). But we're weaker at Goalie, arguably weaker at the 4th line, still haven't improved lack of toughness/size and our two main guys are yet another year older (not getting better...and WILL get worse..just a matter of time).

Honestly, i see us about the same as last year.

 

[King'sPawn]

improving in one area while getting weaker in another is not an overall improvement. sure they have improved at 3C with the PLD add (likely PD moving down one spot). But we're weaker at Goalie, arguably weaker at the 4th line, still haven't improved lack of toughness/size and our two main guys are yet another year older (not getting better...and WILL get worse..just a matter of time).

Honestly, i see us about the same as last year.

Not to mention forcing a 21-man roster to be cap compliant. Get a couple guys hurt but not qualified for LTIR, and you will have shorter benches.

 

[bland]

The Kings made the playoffs after signing Phil Danault last summer, then followed it up with another strong season, and went out on a whimper in the postseason due to their lack of depth and pathetic special teams.

You don't think what they've added is going to help them address your third point of winning in the playoffs? What is it that they are trying to accomplish now by adding another top line center?

I guess improving year on year isn't upwards trajectory in some jaded eyes. Playing important games must be detrimental to young players.

They have only "improved" once in the last 6 seasons. Last year saw no upper movement, the results were the exact same but with the so-called improvements of Fiala, Gavrikov and Korpisalo - which only goes to help the theory that the roster isn't the biggest problem here.

What "improvements" have been made this off-season? A net loss of goals, a loss of depth, worse goaltending (on paper) than what they ended the season with, and a stretched out cap that will prevent them from moving forwards.

Honestly, do you think Dubois is going to make that big of a difference? He is a career middle ground scorer with long lapses in top effort.

I do think he will mesh well with Fiala, but Fiala is a bit of a paper tiger whom the Kings had a better record and played better hockey without last year.

The Kings are paying extended, high-dollar contracts to players that have never been top level performers or trusted to be first liners on their previous squads. There is an awful lot of hope there, which very well could pan out. They are over-stuffing the middle of their roster while their top players are no longer significant forces in their positions. Its not a recipe for success.

Not to mention forcing a 21-man roster to be cap compliant. Get a couple guys hurt but not qualified for LTIR, and you will have shorter benches.

Looking forward to those 19 man benches with players in their mid 30s playing bigger minutes, because it's not like Kopitar and Doughty weren't completely gassed in the FIRST ROUND last year.

 

[King'sPawn]

Looking forward to those 19 man benches with players in their mid 30s playing bigger minutes, because it's not like Kopitar and Doughty weren't completely gassed in the FIRST ROUND last year.

It's just a trickle-down effect, too. You keep putting more minutes on shortened benches, and you're risking more injuries.

It's not just the Kings, either. Any team with a strategy of a shortened roster almost has to hope for an injury to bail them out.

 

[Ollie Weeks]

It's just a trickle-down effect, too. You keep putting more minutes on shortened benches, and you're risking more injuries.

It's not just the Kings, either. Any team with a strategy of a shortened roster almost has to hope for an injury to bail them out.

And the RIGHT injury.

It could be argued that (among other things) Lehner sitting out and not potentially stinking up the joint paved the Knight’s road to a Stanley Cup.

 

[Vote4Lubo]

improving in one area while getting weaker in another is not an overall improvement. sure they have improved at 3C with the PLD add (likely PD moving down one spot). But we're weaker at Goalie, arguably weaker at the 4th line, still haven't improved lack of toughness/size and our two main guys are yet another year older (not getting better...and WILL get worse..just a matter of time).

Honestly, i see us about the same as last year.

Not having Edler fumbling the puck or falling to his knees in the d-zone will be a vast improvement

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

Now I gotta start to wonder how many posters on here are literally on anti-depressants