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

[Surf Nutz]

100 points
It is hard to shiip on triple digits but some sailors just like to stretch.

What?

Thanks for your insights.

 

[Statto]

I’m not sure you realize what a spare tire is. First off, Copley would be akin to a spare tire in the garage and available in case the actual spare tire is messed up and needs a temporary replacement.

Second, it’s ironic because a spare tire is something you don’t use except for emergency and only for a very very limited time. It’s not a solution. So I find the Copley spare tire analogy kinda funny and odd.

You are over analysing the analogy. The point is they signed a NHL capable #3. No one is saying they expected him to do what he did.

Cal was untradeable at the start of the season and everyone loses their minds if they’d moved Quick before the season.

All he is saying is that they planned on having someone that could step up to some degree if needed. If they had made no plan we’d have had Villalta in net during the season. I’m not suggesting the situation was good but they definitely took some steps to provide cover.

Also by saying the number 3 is the spare in the garage is wrong and you misrepresent how goaltending works. They are a duo even, regardless of how they split time. Both are dressed, both can play in a single game and they usually work very closely together (that’s apparent in most rooms). The #3 is absolutely the spare.

 

[Statto]

Well, he was an NHL’er at 19 and 20, so yes I would assume the Kings probably projected him to be an NHL player right now.

I feel like you expect significantly more growth from Bjornfot, but considering there hasn’t really been much between 19 and 21, I still think he is probably one of those guys who just peaked at a younger age. I’d still prefer him over Edler at this point, and be is fine as a #6 type guy. Just saying when people bring up the lack of LHD, his lack of progression is a factor.

I still think there is upside there. He was decent until his injury last season and since then they’ve handled him poorly in my view. The way he had been used is how you undermine someone’s confidence. He’s not been bad in his limited opportunities this year.

At this point with Edler hurt he might play although I guess they might recall Spence and play 5 RD with both Walker and Durzi on their offside (Only half joking).

 

[Sol]

I still think Petersen's a decent goaltender and should be relied upon as the backup come next season.

LMFAOOOOOOOO

 

[rajuabju]

So Edler injured…. Do either Spence or TB play or we just gonna roll 5 D cause Todd hates them?

 

[KingsFan7824]

It’s insane to me that you think anyone posts on here every day because they want the Kings to lose. I’m critical of some of Blake’s moves because of how good the team has been in spite of the weaknesses coming into the season.

You’re asking me to do the impossible with these signings and trades. I don’t know who was or was not available. But feel free to comb through posts dating back to last season, many on these forums knew that there were big question marks at LHD and G. That’s Rob’s job to make those moves, not mine. I can be critical of these things without having all the answers.

But that's the thing; without a full picture, it's tough to be specifically critical. We don't know what Blake has or has not tried to do. Just because Blake did nothing to address the LHD or G situation over the summer doesn't mean he didn't try, or doesn't know issues exist.

At what point does Blake deserve criticism for roster issues? Don’t talk about Lombardi or Taylor or Jack Kent Cooke. Talk about Blake and the team as it sits now. What would you say he has done poorly as a general manager?

As a fan, I have no desire to excessively criticize in the moment. The team as it sits right now, flawed as it is, might win the division and finish 1st in the West. It is what it is.

Obviously investing in the team in the summer of 2018 turned out to be the wrong move to make. Petersen seems to be a mistake. Not that I had any particular name to wish for, but did the hiring of TM excite me? No. I'm willing to see how it goes though. They can fire him today if they want however, and I'll roll with those punches. Same for Blake. I don't care who the GM and coach are, my attitude will be the same. It's not about protecting Blake from criticism. I don't care about Rob Blake.

The Kings will do what they do, I'll be open to seeing how things go, and when people inevitably get fired, then we at least have a beginning, middle, and end to that particular story. Until we get the end though, it's all part of the unfolding process.

TM has never won anything, so he won't win anything. The Kings had never won the Cup either, until they did. They did it with a good coach though. The same good coach that the players stopped listening to shorrly thereafter, even though he won them 2 Cups.

 

[Schrute farms]

You are over analysing the analogy. The point is they signed a NHL capable #3. No one is saying they expected him to do what he did.

Cal was untradeable at the start of the season and everyone loses their minds if they’d moved Quick before the season.

All he is saying is that they planned on having someone that could step up to some degree if needed. If they had made no plan we’d have had Villalta in net during the season. I’m not suggesting the situation was good but they definitely took some steps to provide cover.

Also by saying the number 3 is the spare in the garage is wrong and you misrepresent how goaltending works. They are a duo even, regardless of how they split time. Both are dressed, both can play in a single game and they usually work very closely together (that’s apparent in most rooms). The #3 is absolutely the spare.

You are over analyzing my response lol. I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek. A spare tire is in the actual car. That would be the backup #2 goalie since he's with the team. Copley (i.e., #3) wasn't with the NHL team and is down on the farm in Ontario. Hence being a backup spare sitting in the garage analogy.

Anyway, it's all a bit silly. Point is, when they signed Copley, he was done so for Ontario and organizational depth. There was no foresight that he would be a viable NHL goaltender for a playoff team -- not to mention needed by the Kings when you have Quick/Petersen. Saying so is giving WAY too much credit to the FO. But hey, if you want to do that, then you need to give them hell for: signing Cal, going into the season with Cal/Quick, not properly addressing organizational goalie needs the past few years and spending big draft capital on a pending FA #1 goalie. You can't have it both ways.

 

[kilowatt]

But that's the thing; without a full picture, it's tough to be specifically critical. We don't know what Blake has or has not tried to do. Just because Blake did nothing to address the LHD or G situation over the summer doesn't mean he didn't try, or doesn't know issues exist.

So you’re rating Blake’s performance as a GM on how hard he may have tried to solve issues he may have identified?

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

So you’re rating Blake’s performance as a GM on how hard he may have tried to solve issues he may have identified?

Isn't it better to rate Blake's performance, on the how the team performs?

 

[johnjm22]

 

[KingsFan7824]

So you’re rating Blake’s performance as a GM on how hard he may have tried to solve issues he may have identified?

No, I'm not rating Blake's performance as a GM until he gets fired. I'm also not criticizing moves that I don't know existed or didn't exist.

Did Blake have a chance to get _____? If he did, what did he offer in return? Did the other team want what was offered? If it's a free agent, what's the contract? Were they interested in signing in LA? What would it have taken to get them? If I can't answer these questions with real names and numbers, what am I criticizing? I can't throw a random name into the blank space and then work out an entire theory.

They should've gotten Soucey before the season. The first thing I think of if someone says that is, is he even available to get? If he's not, then there's nothing to think or talk.about. if he is, I need to know A to Z how the deal happens. If someone says well.just trade _____ for him, that does nothing for me. I don't know what Seattle wants for him, and I'm not going to assume the answer is Walker or Durzi.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

But that's the thing; without a full picture, it's tough to be specifically critical. We don't know what Blake has or has not tried to do. Just because Blake did nothing to address the LHD or G situation over the summer doesn't mean he didn't try, or doesn't know issues exist.

We do, though.

We know he tried--and failed--to acquire Pacioretty.
We know he tried--and failed--to acquire Wallstedt.
We know he tried to some degree to acquire Chychrun.

We can EASILY surmise one of the following:
1. He is keenly aware of the issues at LHD and G--I'm sure you'll agree most of the evidence points to this.
2. He is blissfully unaware of the issues at LHD and G.
3. He is somewhat aware of the concerns at LHD and G and doesn't think they're as big a deal as everyone here.

All us message board idiots have been pointing these out since 2021--yet now, because of trying and failing to address them, he's paying a premium for what could ultimately be band-aids.

Did Blake have a chance to get _____? If he did, what did he offer in return? Did the other team want what was offered? If it's a free agent, what's the contract? Were they interested in signing in LA? What would it have taken to get them? If I can't answer these questions with real names and numbers, what am I criticizing? I can't throw a random name into the blank space and then work out an entire theory.

...and I think it's fair to wonder about the acquisition cost and say well maybe he just isn't interested in that player at that price. Yet, here we are blowing futures on bandaids, so what's worse?

he's had PLENTY of time to address several large elephants in the room and whatever the reason--he failed. How much time does he get to correct things before he's allowed to be critiqued for it? He had no problem chasing a PPG winger when there were other holes.

 

[KingsFan7824]

We do, though.

We know he tried--and failed--to acquire Pacioretty.
We know he tried--and failed--to acquire Wallstedt.
We know he tried to some degree to acquire Chychrun.

We can EASILY surmise one of the following:
1. He is keenly aware of the issues at LHD and G--I'm sure you'll agree most of the evidence points to this.
2. He is blissfully unaware of the issues at LHD and G.
3. He is somewhat aware of the concerns at LHD and G and doesn't think they're as big a deal as everyone here.

All us message board idiots have been pointing these out since 2021--yet now, because of trying and failing to address them, he's paying a premium for what could ultimately be band-aids.

Ok, yes, and? He tries to.do something, but can't for one reason or another. Then he tries something again, manages to do it, but it's not good enough? We don't know that it's not good enough yet, but it's too risky? Getting Chychrun would've been risky, as he's already hurt again, and people would've complained about that.

Do you know of some perfect move to have made?

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Ok, yes, and? He tries to.do something, but can't for one reason or another. Then he tries something again, manages to do it, but it's not good enough? We don't know that it's not good enough yet, but it's too risky? Getting Chychrun would've been risky, as he's already hurt again, and people would've complained about that.

Do you know of some perfect move to have made?

You're being deliberately obtuse.

His inability to do things before is making them more expensive and risky now--to the extent that we may have the same problems this offseason for the third year running and with fewer assets to address them with. Simple enough?

 

[kingsfan28]

We know he tried--and failed--to acquire Wallstedt.

This is true. At the draft, without a first, they couldn't move up to get him at any spot. Nobody was willing to do it for two 2nds. Then if true, he tried again after the draft and the price was too high. Minn knows what they have and I'm guess he was virtually untouchable .

 

[SettlementRichie10]

But that's the thing; without a full picture, it's tough to be specifically critical. We don't know what Blake has or has not tried to do. Just because Blake did nothing to address the LHD or G situation over the summer doesn't mean he didn't try, or doesn't know issues exist.



As a fan, I have no desire to excessively criticize in the moment. The team as it sits right now, flawed as it is, might win the division and finish 1st in the West. It is what it is.

Obviously investing in the team in the summer of 2018 turned out to be the wrong move to make. Petersen seems to be a mistake. Not that I had any particular name to wish for, but did the hiring of TM excite me? No. I'm willing to see how it goes though. They can fire him today if they want however, and I'll roll with those punches. Same for Blake. I don't care who the GM and coach are, my attitude will be the same. It's not about protecting Blake from criticism. I don't care about Rob Blake.

The Kings will do what they do, I'll be open to seeing how things go, and when people inevitably get fired, then we at least have a beginning, middle, and end to that particular story. Until we get the end though, it's all part of the unfolding process.

TM has never won anything, so he won't win anything. The Kings had never won the Cup either, until they did. They did it with a good coach though. The same good coach that the players stopped listening to shorrly thereafter, even though he won them 2 Cups.

This is all very fair. However, please remember that not every fan is going to take such a carefree attitude with following the team. Some people are simply more critical and judgmental, not just about sports, but about everything in their lives. We all have different personalities.

I don't think it's wrong of you to take this kind of attitude. The only thing I think is unfair is to police how others choose to emotionally engage with the team. Like you said, the Mclellan hire didn't excite you. Others may react with more vitriol, and that's okay.

Ultimately, there will be posters who are quick to anger, and others quick to rationalization. Some will discuss the team as if we're all playing video game hockey. Others will take a more real world approach. I don't think any of these modes of fan engagement are incorrect. Sometimes it's fun, and can provide legitimate insight, to play the "what if" game. You've done it yourself, right? What if Lombardi isn't able to land Carter? Etc. This isn't all that dissimilar from the "what if Blake traded for X, Y, or Z player" discussions brought up by other posters. It's all firmly planted in the realm of fantasy. You can't criticize one poster for conjecturing about possible trades in the Blake era only to turn around and conjecture about what ifs in the Lombardi era.

And for the record, I've never thought you were a bootlicker in the vein of Axl, GBH, etc., where all criticism of the team is automatically wrong. You're willing to turning a critical eye on the Lombardi years, which is rare and worthy of discussion.

 

[bouncesonly]

Hasn't the goalie/LHD "hole" been filled with Korpisalo and Gavrikov? Or are people mad that Blake didn't fill this need at the beginning of the season with term/money, instead of using a first?

 

[SettlementRichie10]

Hasn't the goalie/LHD "hole" been filled with Korpisalo and Gavrikov? Or are people mad that Blake didn't fill this need at the beginning of the season with term/money, instead of using a first?

That's definitely my issue. Historically, teams who trade 1st round picks for rentals don't do well. If Gavrikov and Korpisalo are re-signed, great trade. Good job, Rob Blake. But if one or both of them walk, and the Kings don't make a serious run at a Cup, well...now we're looking at why Dean Lombardi was fired.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Hasn't the goalie/LHD "hole" been filled with Korpisalo and Gavrikov? Or are people mad that Blake didn't fill this need at the beginning of the season with term/money, instead of using a first?

I'll speak for me and me alone.

I feel like this was a long term need and wasn't adequately addressed before the season, costing Blake assets and risk before the window is open.

There are two win conditions for this trade for me:
1. Kings win the Cup, or
2. Either Gavrikov or Korpisalo are retained for reasonable deals and their play keeps up.

My main beef with it is once you start burning firsts, you're signalling you're a window open team. It took teams like TO, TBL, Edmonton quite some time into their window-open phases before they started spending those on rentals, frankly.

But my bigger beef is if this team doesn't go beyond the first round and both those guys walk, you've burned your last two firsts and have the exact same problem quite a few of us have been harping on for several years now. For a guy as typically patient and conservative as Blake, this looks relatively panicky/hasty given both the rental risks (hell, Gavrikov speaking openly about wanting to test the market for a long-term deal) and the opportunity cost.

 

[bouncesonly]

Isn't a first worth the hedge to see how well these guys will do in the regular season/playoffs before spending term/money on them. I could see how Blake would accept this considering the shit show Peterson turned out to be.

 

[DapperDan]

I'll speak for me and me alone.

I feel like this was a long term need and wasn't adequately addressed before the season, costing Blake assets and risk before the window is open.

There are two win conditions for this trade for me:
1. Kings win the Cup, or
2. Either Gavrikov or Korpisalo are retained for reasonable deals and their play keeps up.

My main beef with it is once you start burning firsts, you're signalling you're a window open team. It took teams like TO, TBL, Edmonton quite some time into their window-open phases before they started spending those on rentals, frankly.

But my bigger beef is if this team doesn't go beyond the first round and both those guys walk, you've burned your last two firsts and have the exact same problem quite a few of us have been harping on for several years now. For a guy as typically patient and conservative as Blake, this looks relatively panicky/hasty given both the rental risks (hell, Gavrikov speaking openly about wanting to test the market for a long-term deal) and the opportunity cost.

I would classify it this way:

1. Kings win Cup, any re-signing scenario: Big win
2. Both Gavrikov & Korpisalo re-sign: Big win
3. Only Gavrikov re-signs: Win
4. Only Korpisalo re-signs: Neutral to small loss
5. Neither re-sign: Big loss

Maybe I'm just biased against goalies but Gavrikov is the real prize to me despite how awesome Korpi has played.

 

[SettlementRichie10]

Isn't a first worth the hedge to see how well these guys will do in the regular season/playoffs before spending term/money on them. I could see how Blake would accept this considering the shit show Peterson turned out to be.

Not in my opinion, no. 1st round picks are too valuable to spend on “maybes”.

 

[Fishhead]

Not in my opinion, no. 1st round picks are too valuable to spend on “maybes”.

Especially in a good draft.

The silver lining I find in signing Edler rather than making a move (which was my choice) is this - to get the type of LD we needed it was always going to cost a first, and if they had term a really good prospect would have needed to be added. The more palatable the cap hit, the better the prospect. So if we went after a good defenseman who fit in cap-wise, we probably don't have Vilardi or Kaliyev on the roster right now, as Byfield and Clarke are off limits. Kupari for a lesser D maybe or one with a bigger hit. But if it's Kupari for a higher priced fellow, other moves might have to be made to accommodate that hit.

I never was for trading the first at the deadline, but as much as I wanted the LD solved sooner it could have saved the team from an even bigger blunder. Other side of the coin and all.

 

[SaltyElkHunter]

Have we got any injury reports from practice?

If we win in Edmonton and Vegas we are playing for home ice! If we lose one or both wouldn't mind seeing them rest some of the boys then give them the slump buster/tune up game against the Ducks!

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Especially in a good draft.

The silver lining I find in signing Edler rather than making a move (which was my choice) is this - to get the type of LD we needed it was always going to cost a first, and if they had term a really good prospect would have needed to be added. The more palatable the cap hit, the better the prospect. So if we went after a good defenseman who fit in cap-wise, we probably don't have Vilardi or Kaliyev on the roster right now, as Byfield and Clarke are off limits. Kupari for a lesser D maybe or one with a bigger hit. But if it's Kupari for a higher priced fellow, other moves might have to be made to accommodate that hit.

I never was for trading the first at the deadline, but as much as I wanted the LD solved sooner it could have saved the team from an even bigger blunder. Other side of the coin and all.

I think that's a really fair point but it's a little bit of a see-saw/slider; personally I would rather have paid the 1st and even a good prospect/player for a longer-term sure-thing solution. The lesser cost reflects the gamble and there's a cap anyway. You pay for value and certainty and we are literally bleeding assets.

If it ends up being a 1st for Gavrikov plus term, I'm on board. I hate evaluating a trade conditionally but that's what happens when you gamble.