Speculation: LA Kings News, Rumors, Roster Thread 2022-23 Season Part 2

[Raccoon Jesus]

I think people are getting hung up on the "AA" part of it rather than the description of his game.

I don't think anything @bland said there is inaccurate. We can split hairs on what 'line' he's on but the description of Fiala being a high-touch puck guy who does better when he's able to be the puckhog instead of having, say, the insane tic-tac-toe chemistry of the Nice line is pretty spot on. I'ts what makes him an absolute weapon from depth. And he's certainly still growing, I'd argue his game defensively even is night and day from when he arrived here. But he's not a guy who will work well with other players who need the puck on their stick .

 

[Rick Knickleback]

I think people are getting hung up on the "AA" part of it rather than the description of his game.

I think people are getting hung up on the "first line" tag. He's a PPG winger. Not a guy you can build a Cup winner around necessarily (see, Palffy, Zigmund), but a guy every cup winner would love to have and most do.

I also think the Fiala trade has so far worked out a lot better than the skeptics thought it would, so there's some efforts to save face going on.

 

[Schrute farms]

Jim Fox loves him too

Which player are you referencing -- Arvi? Fagemo? or Matthews ?

 

[King'sPawn]

I think people are getting hung up on the "AA" part of it rather than the description of his game.

I don't think anything @bland said there is inaccurate. We can split hairs on what 'line' he's on but the description of Fiala being a high-touch puck guy who does better when he's able to be the puckhog instead of having, say, the insane tic-tac-toe chemistry of the Nice line is pretty spot on. I'ts what makes him an absolute weapon from depth. And he's certainly still growing, I'd argue his game defensively even is night and day from when he arrived here. But he's not a guy who will work well with other players who need the puck on their stick .

I actually have an issue with both the "1st line" label as well as the "AA lite" label. Others have various issues.

1. Regardless of whatever line Fiala plays on, he's a first line forward. He's one of the top-scoring forwards, put in the first powerplay unit, one of the few players McLellan plays in OT. He's put in a lower line to take advantage of the team's depth. It's like when a user used to argue that Dwight King was a top-six forward even though his time on ice was boosted by playing on the PK. It's not necessarily the time on ice or "line", but rather the expectations put on a player.

2. Fiala is more one dimensional and unpredictable compared to most of the Kings players, but there are elements to his game that elevates the play of his teammates. He's sometimes reckless and lacks discipline. Athanasiou is generally a selfish player with the puck, who counts on his own skillset to bail him out of trouble. At this point, it seems that Fiala is showing remarkably close production to Patrick Kane at the same age, in back-to-back seasons on different teams in a similar role. Athanasiou is Austin Wagner with an elite shot.

 

[Schrute farms]

Aren't most of the high scoring, playmaking forwards more one dimensional? Very few guys are Kopitar. Heck, the one big complaint about Kopitar is his lack of shooting and scoring -- maybe he's more one dimensional (defensive) lol (not serious). It's pretty rare to have a guy be an elite scoring/offensive threat while also being good+ defensively. That's the elite of the elite at that point. But especially for wingers -- i don't really know, but seems like most guys are offensive first, then offense, then offensive, then maybe some defense.

Even McDavid was not very good defensively (maybe liability) early on in his career. It seems he's changed that the last 1-2 years. Then again, i don't really follow him except for his highlight offensive plays. So take my McD comment with a grain of salt. But as a center, he should be focusing on defense and his 200 foot game.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

I actually have an issue with both the "1st line" label as well as the "AA lite" label. Others have various issues.

1. Regardless of whatever line Fiala plays on, he's a first line forward. He's one of the top-scoring forwards, put in the first powerplay unit, one of the few players McLellan plays in OT. He's put in a lower line to take advantage of the team's depth. It's like when a user used to argue that Dwight King was a top-six forward even though his time on ice was boosted by playing on the PK. It's not necessarily the time on ice or "line", but rather the expectations put on a player.

2. Fiala is more one dimensional and unpredictable compared to most of the Kings players, but there are elements to his game that elevates the play of his teammates. He's sometimes reckless and lacks discipline. Athanasiou is generally a selfish player with the puck, who counts on his own skillset to bail him out of trouble. At this point, it seems that Fiala is showing remarkably close production to Patrick Kane at the same age, in back-to-back seasons on different teams in a similar role. Athanasiou is Austin Wagner with an elite shot.

No offense intended and it's not solely at you but it reads a whole lot more like pissing about semantics than discussing the actual point and that's what's getting some people a little hot over the last page or so.

Like drop the AA stuff and the line label stuff and what's the actual discussion happening here

 

[King'sPawn]

No offense intended and it's not solely at you but it reads a whole lot more like pissing about semantics than discussing the actual point and that's what's getting some people a little hot over the last page or so.

Like drop the AA stuff and the line label stuff and what's the actual discussion happening here

That's fair, and none taken. But I think the context of bland and myself being the most vocal skeptics about the trade (that I can remember), I think people understandably see red if either of us were to assert that Fiala is an AA-lite player who isn't a top-line player, regardless of explanations given.

And people pounce on single sentences all the time

If you want to, though, we can look at the statement without the two:

But Herby, Fiala hasn't successfully meshed with the two top lines on two teams in two years. He is just not a guy who fits his game into multiple situations. He just flat out functions better with players who defer to him at full strength. On the powerplay he is lights out with other high skill players, but at full strength he is a real liability at times away from the puck.

Do you think that description is agreeable with your own views of Fiala?

He has the second most even strength points, after Kopitar. You think that's all from playing with less skilled, deferential players all season long?

 

[tbrown33]

I wouldn't call this one-dimensional/one trick.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

That's fair, and none taken. But I think the context of bland and myself being the most vocal skeptics about the trade (that I can remember), I think people understandably see red if either of us were to assert that Fiala is an AA-lite player who isn't a top-line player, regardless of explanations given.

And people pounce on single sentences all the time

If you want to, though, we can look at the statement without the two:



Do you think that description is agreeable with your own views of Fiala?

He has the second most even strength points, after Kopitar. You think that's all from playing with less skilled, deferential players all season long?

I agree with most of it. I think the point is he puts up points no matter who he is with so he's almost a waste playing up the lineup because when he doesn't get to hog the puck his deficiencies are on display. As you can tell I'm not interested in splitting hairs on whether he's a 'first liner' or not but Bland is just being descriptive when he says literally Fiala has been on the middle six on both teams, aka away from Kaprizov and Kopitar.

It's no surprise that Kopitar/Kempe in particular is better without him, and thus, the point is he's not as easy a plug-and-play surefire 'top sixer' as it seems, like Kopitar, he needs a particular line chemistry to be most effective. and I say MOST effective particularly, because he's damn effective no matter what.

 

[YAYSAY]

Wasn't Fiala used on the PK in Minnesota and/or Nashville? I think the Kings just want him to play "one dimensionally," god forbid the Kings have a single player who is offensively focused.

 

[King'sPawn]

I agree with most of it. I think the point is he puts up points no matter who he is with so he's almost a waste playing up the lineup because when he doesn't get to hog the puck his deficiencies are on display. As you can tell I'm not interested in splitting hairs on whether he's a 'first liner' or not but Bland is just being descriptive when he says literally Fiala has been on the middle six on both teams, aka away from Kaprizov and Kopitar.

It's no surprise that Kopitar/Kempe in particular is better without him, and thus, the point is he's not as easy a plug-and-play surefire 'top sixer' as it seems, like Kopitar, he needs a particular line chemistry to be most effective. and I say MOST effective particularly, because he's damn effective no matter what.

Okay, well maybe I'm being nitpicky, but I think Fiala is just a top-tier offensive player just like almost anyone else. Almost all players play better with particular chemistry. We're not talking about Gretzky or Lemieux here.

I agree that Fiala isn't a plug-and-play type. But there aren't many players on the Kings who are. I'd say that's just Moore, Iafallo, and maybe Danault. Maybe Roy on the blueline.

If we're arguing that Fiala is dependent on chemistry to be most successful, that's very different from the overall tone and assessment that people got upset over. It's also, for lack of a better word, normal for almost any player, so it's a rather benign assessment.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Okay, well maybe I'm being nitpicky, but I think Fiala is just a top-tier offensive player just like almost anyone else. Almost all players play better with particular chemistry. We're not talking about Gretzky or Lemieux here.

I agree that Fiala isn't a plug-and-play type. But there aren't many players on the Kings who are. I'd say that's just Moore, Iafallo, and maybe Danault. Maybe Roy on the blueline.

If we're arguing that Fiala is dependent on chemistry to be most successful, that's very different from the overall tone and assessment that people got upset over. It's also, for lack of a better word, normal for almost any player, so it's a rather benign assessment.

Well, I agree with that, but it's the degree. It's definitely not as severe as Kovalchuk or AA, and his offense shows up no matter what, but his all-around game gets exposed more than most if he's with the wrong guys. And you can see it in the GF% and xGF% with various linemates.

I'm not trying to poopoo the guy, but being a bit of a 'lone wolf' I do think it's a legitimate team-building line item that needs to be addressed, and one of the reasons Minnesota (wrongly, imo) deemed him expendable.

But I'm 100% with you that he's a top tier offensive player and that not everyone needs to be a perfect two-way player to be extremely valuable. I think it's very similar in theory to the Kovalchuk acquisition with a large magnitude greater of results.

 

[bland]

That's fair, and none taken. But I think the context of bland and myself being the most vocal skeptics about the trade (that I can remember), I think people understandably see red if either of us were to assert that Fiala is an AA-lite player who isn't a top-line player, regardless of explanations given.

And people pounce on single sentences all the time

If you want to, though, we can look at the statement without the two:



Do you think that description is agreeable with your own views of Fiala?

He has the second most even strength points, after Kopitar. You think that's all from playing with less skilled, deferential players all season long?

So the fact that he has been taken off of the legitimate first lines of two teams in a row and has seen his best "line" success with players who are most definitely not "first line" players somehow means that he is a "first line" player despite the fact that he does not and has not succeeded on any teams first line and is not playing on his teams "first line"?

That's just arguing for the sake of arguing. Forget the numbers, look at what happens when he is on the ice. More often than not he is going to create high danger chances (occasionally at both ends of the ice), but do you want him on the ice when you are trying to hold a lead late? Of course not. No shame in that either, except maybe for pointing it out?

But Patrick Kane is a terrific comparable. I use Athanasiou because of the familiarity here and that he is also a high-skill player who cannot play with other first liners who thrive with the puck, dominates the puck on his shifts, and plays with the disposition that things will go better if he is the one making the decisions. That is a PERFECT description of Fiala's approach to the game. Yes, it is critical. So what - it is absolutely true. Everybody has flaws somehow its more of a sin to point out those of the shiney offensive toys?

Well, I agree with that, but it's the degree. It's definitely not as severe as Kovalchuk or AA, and his offense shows up no matter what, but his all-around game gets exposed more than most if he's with the wrong guys. And you can see it in the GF% and xGF% with various linemates.

I'm not trying to poopoo the guy, but being a bit of a 'lone wolf' I do think it's a legitimate team-building line item that needs to be addressed, and one of the reasons Minnesota (wrongly, imo) deemed him expendable.

But I'm 100% with you that he's a top tier offensive player and that not everyone needs to be a perfect two-way player to be extremely valuable. I think it's very similar in theory to the Kovalchuk acquisition with a large magnitude greater of results.

Just to point out the obvious - Minnesota is better without Fiala. And Suter and Parise. Its not the names or the numbers that matter, its how you can achieve your objectives and yes, sometimes offensive players can actually get in the way and teams can be better without as much give and take in the lineup.

 

[kingsfan28]

Cole Krygier?

 

[King'sPawn]

So the fact that he has been taken off of the legitimate first lines of two teams in a row and has seen his best "line" success with players who are most definitely not "first line" players somehow means that he is a "first line" player despite the fact that he does not and has not succeeded on any teams first line and is not playing on his teams "first line"?

That's just arguing for the sake of arguing. Forget the numbers, look at what happens when he is on the ice. More often than not he is going to create high danger chances (occasionally at both ends of the ice), but do you want him on the ice when you are trying to hold a lead late? Of course not. No shame in that either, except maybe for pointing it out?

But Patrick Kane is a terrific comparable. I use Athanasiou because of the familiarity here and that he is also a high-skill player who cannot play with other first liners who thrive with the puck, dominates the puck on his shifts, and plays with the disposition that things will go better if he is the one making the decisions. That is a PERFECT description of Fiala's approach to the game. Yes, it is critical. So what - it is absolutely true. Everybody has flaws somehow its more of a sin to point out those of the shiney offensive toys?


Just to point out the obvious - Minnesota is better without Fiala. And Suter and Parise. Its not the names or the numbers that matter, its how you can achieve your objectives and yes, sometimes offensive players can actually get in the way and teams can be better without as much give and take in the lineup.

Fiala is a top-line quality player. But he may not be best suited for the Kings' top line. Those two statements CAN be true. Frankly, I think the biggest issue when Fiala was on the line was Kempe. Do I want Fiala on the top line? I'd be willing to play him with Kopitar and Byfield to see how it works out. You point out how deferential Kopitar is and you've mentioned in the past he'd be good with Byfield centering him. So, sure!

Considering you think Kane is a good comparable, are you suggesting Patrick Kane wasn't a first-line player at his age?

There's nothing wrong with critiquing a player. It's the blanket statements and inflexibility I disagree with. Saying Fiala's lack of structure is dangerous to the Kings, and thus is better suited for specific uses is MUCH different than saying he's a really good third-line player, as if every team in the league wouldn't play him on the top line except for a select few (like Minnesota, who has Kaprizov higher on the depth chart).

 

[johnjm22]

Fiala is a positive impact player overall.

The price the Kings paid for him, and his subsequent contract are perfectly equitable.

But there is a legitimate question as to whether or not acquiring him makes the franchise better off. His cap hit would've been better allocated to defense.

One nice thing about Fiala's contract is that there's no clauses in it.

 

[bland]

Wasn't Fiala used on the PK in Minnesota and/or Nashville? I think the Kings just want him to play "one dimensionally," god forbid the Kings have a single player who is offensively focused.

He has 1 shorthanded point in his entire career, so given his ability, that is probably a pretty good reflection of his usage on the PK. Not ironclad of course.

There is absolutely no problem with having one dimensional offensive wingers on your team. The question here is this one worth what he cost when you consider all the factors, including the affect on the team's style of play, the displacement of younger players already on the roster that could thrive in that role and if the salary could best be used elsewhere. In a vacuum, hell of a player. When all things are considered, are the Kings really better off now?

At the very least it is a topic worth discussing.

 

[Gjwrams]

He has 1 shorthanded point in his entire career, so given his ability, that is probably a pretty good reflection of his usage on the PK. Not ironclad of course.

There is absolutely no problem with having one dimensional offensive wingers on your team. The question here is this one worth what he cost when you consider all the factors, including the affect on the team's style of play, the displacement of younger players already on the roster that could thrive in that role and if the salary could best be used elsewhere. In a vacuum, hell of a player. When all things are considered, are the Kings really better off now?

At the very least it is a topic worth discussing.

Yes. I believe the Kings are better off now and will be over the next 3-5 years of his contract.

No. I do not believe trading Faber (who I think is a marvelous player) was too steep a price given RHD was, and continues to be, our absolute deepest and strongest asset base.

Is he who I want out killing a crucial penalty late in a 1 goal game. Probably not my first choice or even 2nd choice on wing. Is he who I want on ice chasing a goal late in the game. You bet.

Good discussion @bland

 

[Little Psycho]

Bjornfot got called up

 

[Trash Panda]

Bjornfot got called up

It’ll be a good thing for him to watch a few games from the Pressbox as we force Durzi to play his off side on the first pair, and ice the ever stalwart pair of Edler-Walker.

 

[King'sPawn]

It’ll be a good thing for him to watch a few games from the Pressbox as we force Durzi to play his off side on the first pair, and ice the ever stalwart pair of Edler-Walker.

I'm half joking when I say I wouldn't be surprised to see Bjornfot play his offside on a pairing with Edler.

 

[NikF]

The goalie, defensemen and centers are the meat. The wingers are the seasoning. It's always been like that.

 

[Trash Panda]

I'm half joking when I say I wouldn't be surprised to see Bjornfot play his offside on a pairing with Edler.

I’d only be slightly more surprised about this, than him actually playing.

 

[YAYSAY]

I blame this skid on Faust saying "jump on the wagon, this team is real," while they were up 5-1 against STL. Since then everything has gone wrong

 

[Lt Dan]

Cole Krygier?

Where is everyone's manners to leave my man k28 hanging for 19 hours?

The Kings traded for CK back on 3/20

LA Kings Acquire Rights to Defenseman Cole Krygier from the Panthers | Los Angeles Kings

The LA Kings have acquired the rights to defenseman Cole Krygier from the Florida Panthers in exchange for future considerations. Krygier, 22, recently completed his fifth season with Michigan State University where he registered 16 points (10-6=16) in 38 games while serving as alternate...

www.nhl.com

and he signed with us on March 25

LA Kings Sign Defenseman Cole Krygier To A Two-Year Entry-Level Contract | Los Angeles Kings

The LA Kings have signed defenseman Cole Krygier to a two-year entry-level contract beginning in the 2023-24 season worth an average annual value (AAV) of $837,500 through the 2024-25 season. Krygier, 22, recently completed his fifth season with Michigan State University, serving as alternate...

www.nhl.com

It should be an awesome pick up



Scouting report Florida Panthers Prospect Profile: Cole Krygier

He's got some size and we (obviously) need that (if last night wasn't a sign)

Yes , he is Todd Krygier's son