Toggle sidebar

Kings Article: LA Kings’ Gamble on Sheldon Rempal Could Pay Off Big

Status
Not open for further replies.
Raccoon Jesus said:
I agree with all of this. To add, the folks who can get away with writing more scathing material have tenure and embedded media passes. Helene has been absolutely scathing and I love it. Dillman has been very critical herself, which is the first I've really seen of it from her. Even Rosen has been breathing fire. Zupke and Cooper are more moderate, but they're not pushing over. But does anyone really want to see The Mayor and Bernstein editorializing any more than they have?

Gann has access and tenure and he's chosen to deeply investigate particular prospects. There's plenty of outrage to read about elsewhere; I appreciate a fresh, in depth look at our prospects, especially in a season that's gotten more negativity coverage than any I can remember. Not sure really what else is wanted other than asking specific, hard-hitting questions to Kopitar and the like, but this is a strange place to ask for it.
Click to expand...

BINGO. the rest of the local media, most of whom cover the team full-time, are doing this, by and large. I cover the Kings when I have time to do it. It's not how I make a living. So, since I'm not with the team all the time, I usually choose to cover stuff that the rest aren't. Otherwise, you'd all be reading the same stuff that most of the local media are going to be able to report before I can. I often have to go to work after practice and can't write until late at night and by that time, such stories have been published for several hours.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigBrown, DoktorJeep and regulate
FrozenRoyalty said:
You'd last a few minutes in an NHL locker room before they threw you out on your ass for being unprofessional.

Fact is, everyone knows what the Kings problems are and they've been written about this season. There's not much reason to rehash things.

And if what I wrote is a "puff piece" (actually the term is, "fluff,") then you really have no idea what such a piece is. Just because a story isn't critical of a bad team doesn't make it a fluff piece.

I cover Kings prospects all the time, probably more than most of the local media. I've learned over the years that you have to look at potential, especially for players with skill who are in just their first or second year of professional hockey. What's the point of writing about a player and then stating in the story that he has little to no chance of making it to the NHL? A reporter stupid enough to do that would lose credibility and access to sources.

If you don't want to read about such players, that's certainly your choice. But if you're not going to read such stories, you really don't have any credibility when it comes to commenting on them.
Click to expand...
You keep doing what you’re doing, Gann. I enjoy your pieces on prospects. Frankly I would know Jack about these guys without you and a few posters who care about the young guys coming up. I’m glad someone is telling the stories that big time reporters won’t tell.

This board is populated with a bunch of fans who know better than everyone else and can’t help letting you know that. It was called “Hockey’s Future,” people. I come to hear about hockey’s future, which is what Gann is giving us a glimpse into.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sacha Baron Corbin, DoktorJeep, crassbonanza and 2 others
FrozenRoyalty said:
Again...FIRST-YEAR PRO.
Click to expand...

you are aware that many hockey players get less than 7 games to prove themselves right?

even fewer get a second chance when they do absolutely jack shit in those 7 games

only reason we will be seeing more of Rempal is due to the lack of prospects we have, and NOT due to Rempal's amazing AHL stats
 
KingPuckChoo said:
you are aware that many hockey players get less than 7 games to prove themselves right?

even fewer get a second chance when they do absolutely jack **** in those 7 games
Click to expand...

and he is back down in the AHL so that he can keep working on his game and now has a better idea of what needs to be worked on to be an every day NHL player. I don't get your argument against Rempal here. The only thing he has cost the kings is a contract of which they are only allowed 50, and in return he has been a brite spot in the AHL. Even if he does not pan out he has proven he is definitely worth the contract IMO
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fat Elvis and crassbonanza
FrozenRoyalty said:
You'd last a few minutes in an NHL locker room before they threw you out on your ass for being unprofessional.

Fact is, everyone knows what the Kings problems are and they've been written about this season. There's not much reason to rehash things.

And if what I wrote is a "puff piece" (actually the term is, "fluff,") then you really have no idea what such a piece is. Just because a story isn't critical of a bad team doesn't make it a fluff piece.

I cover Kings prospects all the time, probably more than most of the local media. I've learned over the years that you have to look at potential, especially for players with skill who are in just their first or second year of professional hockey. What's the point of writing about a player and then stating in the story that he has little to no chance of making it to the NHL? A reporter stupid enough to do that would lose credibility and access to sources.

If you don't want to read about such players, that's certainly your choice. But if you're not going to read such stories, you really don't have any credibility when it comes to commenting on them.
Click to expand...
Rehashed? You and others have barely scratched the surface.

I see it's the team and the organization providing access which determines your "professionalism", and not your readers, is that correct?

What is a Puff Piece

A puff piece is a newspaper article or a segment on a television show that uses exaggerated praise to promote something or someone – typically a celebrity, book, or event. A puff piece also tends to ignore any negative viewpoints, information, or evidence, in favor of blatant promotion of the person, event, or item.
Sometimes even just the review of a product or service can be considered an example of puffery because of the assumed bias – whether real or imagined – on the part of the reviewer. This is because people just assume that if someone is writing favorably about a product or service, he or she is likely saying those things because they are being paid to. The opposite is also true, however. If a reviewer writes negatively about a product or service, it may be assumed he is doing so because he is being paid to do just that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sol, Maynard and BigKing
FrozenRoyalty said:
You'd last a few minutes in an NHL locker room before they threw you out on your ass for being unprofessional.

Fact is, everyone knows what the Kings problems are and they've been written about this season. There's not much reason to rehash things.

And if what I wrote is a "puff piece" (actually the term is, "fluff,") then you really have no idea what such a piece is. Just because a story isn't critical of a bad team doesn't make it a fluff piece.

I cover Kings prospects all the time, probably more than most of the local media. I've learned over the years that you have to look at potential, especially for players with skill who are in just their first or second year of professional hockey. What's the point of writing about a player and then stating in the story that he has little to no chance of making it to the NHL? A reporter stupid enough to do that would lose credibility and access to sources.

If you don't want to read about such players, that's certainly your choice. But if you're not going to read such stories, you really don't have any credibility when it comes to commenting on them.
Click to expand...

I know you were planning to already, but please keep doing what you're doing. A lot of us like reading not just about the prospects, but the organization's expectations and criticisms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crassbonanza
KINGS17 said:
Rehashed? You and others have barely scratched the surface.

I see it's the team and the organization providing access which determines your "professionalism", and not your readers, is that correct?
Click to expand...

Wrong. It's both, really. A credible journalist has to be fair to everyone—reader and subject. Otherwise, no one is properly served.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: crassbonanza
FrozenRoyalty said:
You'd last a few minutes in an NHL locker room before they threw you out on your ass for being unprofessional.

Fact is, everyone knows what the Kings problems are and they've been written about this season. There's not much reason to rehash things.

And if what I wrote is a "puff piece" (actually the term is, "fluff,") then you really have no idea what such a piece is. Just because a story isn't critical of a bad team doesn't make it a fluff piece.

I cover Kings prospects all the time, probably more than most of the local media. I've learned over the years that you have to look at potential, especially for players with skill who are in just their first or second year of professional hockey. What's the point of writing about a player and then stating in the story that he has little to no chance of making it to the NHL? A reporter stupid enough to do that would lose credibility and access to sources.

If you don't want to read about such players, that's certainly your choice. But if you're not going to read such stories, you really don't have any credibility when it comes to commenting on them.
Click to expand...

I wasn't really active back around 2010-11, but out of curiosity did you write an article about Justin Azevedo ?
 
I there is a link out there where a reporter has asked Kopitar, Carter, Toffoli, etc. why they are having problems putting up points this season, I would love to read it. Likewise if a single reporter has provided any kind of analysis on why this team, with this roster is DFL.
 
KingPuckChoo said:
you are aware that many hockey players get less than 7 games to prove themselves right?

even fewer get a second chance when they do absolutely jack **** in those 7 games

only reason we will be seeing more of Rempal is due to the lack of prospects we have, and NOT due to Rempal's amazing AHL stats
Click to expand...
.

You're aware that the vast majority of players, even first round picks, get way more than that, right?

Let's get real here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crassbonanza and King'sPawn
I actually like articles like this because it gives a bit of insight into the thought process of trying to get this team back to respectability from managements view. It's also neat to get insight from players trying to break in from different paths, even though most of them tend to parrot the same lines. I think of these pieces as filler to enhance my knowledge of the team as they aren't really key topics. Just something to add some flavor. That said, I would love someone to sit down with Luc/Blake and ask them point blank about what they think happened this season. They obviously didn't foresee this, and I would love to hear their honest analysis about what they misread in this team. I get the intricacies of the relationship between media folks and the teams they cover, but it is frustrating when the fans and ticket holders who attend events ask way tougher questions than we get from media coverage.

As for Rempal, I'd love for him to pan out, but after his AHL season so far this year I expected a little more out of him. Both Luff (also undrafted) and Wagner came in, also first year pros, and have produced to some degree. Luff is already playing himself up the lines with his scoring ability.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KingTrouty, Fat Elvis, Raccoon Jesus and 1 other person
I'm not going to criticize Rempal for anything he does in terms of production this season at the NHL level. Pearson's first call up was an utter disaster and he was a late 1st round pick.

A lot of players come up, see what it takes, and go back down to the AHL to improve their game. Nothing wrong with that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KingTrouty, Fat Elvis, BigKing and 1 other person
KINGS17 said:
Rehashed? You and others have barely scratched the surface.

I see it's the team and the organization providing access which determines your "professionalism", and not your readers, is that correct?

What is a Puff Piece

A puff piece is a newspaper article or a segment on a television show that uses exaggerated praise to promote something or someone – typically a celebrity, book, or event. A puff piece also tends to ignore any negative viewpoints, information, or evidence, in favor of blatant promotion of the person, event, or item.
Sometimes even just the review of a product or service can be considered an example of puffery because of the assumed bias – whether real or imagined – on the part of the reviewer. This is because people just assume that if someone is writing favorably about a product or service, he or she is likely saying those things because they are being paid to. The opposite is also true, however. If a reviewer writes negatively about a product or service, it may be assumed he is doing so because he is being paid to do just that.
Click to expand...

If you're claiming that this story is a puff or fluff piece, you're so far out in left field that there's no point in discussing this further.
 
  • Like
Reactions: regulate and crassbonanza
BigKing said:
No issue with prospect pieces; however, the headline seems a bit much since Blake isn't gambling at all unless we are talking one of the 50 contracts.

What Blake is gambling with is my season seat renewal.
Click to expand...
I think BigKing just hit the nail on the head. This isn't a gamble at all by Blake. Now if the "jounalist" wants to write an article about a gamble, perhaps the subject should be Vilardi, or maybe the gamble should be about the displeasure of long time season ticket holders.
 
FrozenRoyalty said:
If you're claiming that this story is a puff or fluff piece, you're so far out in left field that there's no point in discussing this further.
Click to expand...
I'm saying you and other bloggers are not journalists, because you are never critical of the Kings organization, the players, or their approach with the fans. You go easy to get the access you require to continue being a blogger and maintain your access to continue your blog. Whatever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maynard
KINGS17 said:
I'm saying you and other bloggers are not journalists, because you are never critical of the Kings organization, the players, or their approach with the fans. You go easy to get the access you require to continue being a blogger and maintain your access to continue your blog. Whatever.
Click to expand...

:LOL! You clearly have no clue about journalism. Enjoy the blissful ignorance colored by your fandom.
 
FrozenRoyalty said:
:LOL! You clearly have no clue about journalism. Enjoy the blissful ignorance colored by your fandom.
Click to expand...
You know what is truly funny? You bloggers look down on long time fans as if we don't know anything about hockey or the Kings. I would put at least a score of posters on the Kings board up against any one of you.
 
KINGS17 said:
You know what is truly funny? You bloggers look down on long time fans as if we don't know anything about hockey or the Kings. I would put at least a score of posters on the Kings board up against any one of you.
Click to expand...

I'm not a blogger.....just saying
 
KingPuckChoo said:
you're not much of anything, just sayin'
Click to expand...

Never claimed to be, too bad you get hurt with everything that is said to you....imagine if you could accurately analyze the actual game of hockey, you might know what you are talking about some day,

But you keep on hating on a kid who had 7 games at 5 minutes a game, cuz he has zero points....no really, that really screams I know hockey!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom