unicornpig
Registered User
- Dec 8, 2017
- 3,897
- 5,678
Arizona being the division winner tells you everything. The pacific was pathetic that year
Speculation: LA Kings News, Rumors, Roster Thread part VII
- Thread starter kingsboy11
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
Butch 19
Go cart Mozart
SettlementRichie10
Registered User
- May 6, 2012
- 10,239
- 8,528
This is nonsense. The Coyotes beat the PRIME Hawks and then trashed the Predators in round two. Simultaneously, the Kings dominated the Canucks and Blues in the first two round, and they were #1 and #2 in the west that year.
You can’t make the argument that the Pacific was weak in 2012 without also saying the entire western conference must’ve been weak.
Axl Rhoadz
Binky distributor
- Apr 5, 2011
- 5,343
- 3,960
What else can it be when the Kings have been considered to have one of the top (if not #1) prospect pools in the league?
Raccoon Jesus
We were right there
Even more so than that--people forget there were THREE divisions that year. It was the Canucks who were beating up a bunch of pinatas in the Northwestern Division. Pacific and Central were both deep and strong. Pacific was arguably the most competitive, and two Pac teams running thru the other divisions affirmed it.
kilowatt
the vibes are not immaculate
- Jan 1, 2009
- 18,722
- 21,831
Come on Rob, don't think just do.
Fiala - Kopitar - Kessel
Kempe - Danault - Kessel
Iafallo - Byfield - Kessel
Lemieux - Lizotte - Kessel
KingsFan7824
Registered User
- Dec 4, 2003
- 19,537
- 7,615
That wasn't prime Hawks. That was post-cap crunch Hawks. Even the 2014 Hawks weren't prime. 2010 Hawks were prime.
2012 playoff Kings were prime. 2014 Kings damn near lost in any playoff series. Incredible run, maybe more memorable than 2012, but has there ever been another winner that didn't have even one easy series?
All The Kings Men
Registered User
- Apr 7, 2016
- 2,366
- 5,629
I have long suspected that the people responsible for the 2012 Cup win didn't actually understand how or why they won... and 2014 kind of supports my theories.
bmr
Registered User
- Jan 23, 2013
- 1,888
- 1,717
The Kings were so dialed in 2012 it wasn't even funny. They were peaking at the right time, defensive corps was unbelievably good, Quick was amazing and the team was just laser focused. Their possession numbers were insane and the streak on the road was just incredible. This doesn't happen with just run of the mill teams. They were special.
BringTheReign
Registered User
Wasn’t 2012 the year where none of our defensemen got hurt? I think we dressed the same 6 guys for every playoff game.
Although, it’s easier to avoid injury when you have the puck all the time and your forecheck is a nightmare for other teams.
Although, it’s easier to avoid injury when you have the puck all the time and your forecheck is a nightmare for other teams.
kilowatt
the vibes are not immaculate
- Jan 1, 2009
- 18,722
- 21,831
Yep. Pretty unbelievable. Doughty, Mitchell, Scuderi, Voynov, Greene, Martinez. 20 games each. This is hard for me to believe, Doughty's the same age Scuderi was when we first signed him.
kingsfan28
Its A Kingspiracy !
The entire narrative was so wrong, and it continues today. The Kings made the playoffs by 5 points i think. In baseball, you win the division by 2.5 games, nobody is calling the win "barely" . The entire Pac division came down to the final weekend and I think the Kings need to beat SJ 2 out of the 3 games and ARZ needed to lose for them to win the division. They didn't so it went ARZ, SJ, LA. It easily could've been flipped with just 1 more win. How many times have we heard "The Kings barely made the playoffs as an 8th seed in 2012 and won the cup..." even as recient as this year.
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
- Apr 6, 2006
- 32,583
- 11,777
Yes, the salary cap evened the playing field somewhat among the GMs, and we should all be thankful that it did.
The Kings won two cups under the current system. Nothing wrong with that.
All The Kings Men
Registered User
- Apr 7, 2016
- 2,366
- 5,629
Not really tho...
They won the Cup twice in the brief window when cap circumventing contracts were allowed.
kingsfan28
Its A Kingspiracy !
LTIR is the new cap circumventing . See Tampa.
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
- Apr 6, 2006
- 32,583
- 11,777
If you mean Quick's deal and the deal they inherited in the Carter trade, yes. That was part of the system every team had the opportunity to use to its advantage. I am sure it was one of the things that made Carter a very attractive target for Dean.
All The Kings Men
Registered User
- Apr 7, 2016
- 2,366
- 5,629
I'm talking about Richards and Carter both being on 12 year cap circumventing deals that every team had the opportunity to use to their advantage but the Kings DID use to their advantage.
Not suggesting they weren't shrewd or excellent in their use of the system just pointing out that the current CBA/"system" wouldn't allow for the kind of roster the Kings had in 2012.
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
- Apr 6, 2006
- 32,583
- 11,777
Fair enough. My point is there was a hard cap in place, which is something the other poster abhors.
cyclones22
Registered User
What in the world? The 2014 Kings beat a 111 point team in the First Round, a 116 point team in the Second Round and the defending Champs in the Conference Final. That might have been the hardest road to the Stanley Cup Final ever. Of course there were no "easy" series. Both Cups were some of the more remarkable runs in NHL history. Some absolute historic accomplishments never seen prior on both runs. The best part was the fans around the league shitting their pants because they knew what was coming if the Kings got momentum. That's when you know your team is elite. When other fans expect them to win it all.
Peter James Bond II
"Man, we were right there" - De-Luc-sional
- Mar 5, 2015
- 3,682
- 5,520
BigKing
Blake Out of Hell III: Back in to Hell
You better be considered to have a Top 5 prospect pool if you give away nearly all of your real NHL players of value for picks/prospects and then never trade picks or prospects for pretty much five years while routinely drafting high in the draft because the NHL team sucks so much.
The comment is regarding the development part of that B+ grade. That's probably an A+ after last year's draft from so many that were crowning Blake's "unbelievable turnaround of the worst prospect pool into the best prospect pool" but now we are sitting here with a lot of question marks but the grade is still a B+. The results so far say that they actually suck at drafting or they suck at development: combining the two in to one grade is generous to Management.
Let's do one more summer of me having to remind everyone that Lombardi turned what was considered a shit pipeline into what was considered a Top 5 prospect pool for a few seasons as well. That Top 5 ranking was not supported by Kopitar because he immediately graduated and it only had Doughty in it for one ranking as well. Even if you want to include them, Blake has also had a 2, 5 and 8OA to support his pool rankings. Lombardi had Hickey/Bernier/Lewis/Teubert at the forefront of a pool that was Top 5. You shit all over NHL ice to pick high in the draft while also accumulating more prospects and high picks, well, you're going to get a Top 5 ranking just by taking whoever the CSB or Bobby Mac have as the BPA when you draft.
I'm not saying these guys are write-offs at all. Lombardi wound up with guys like Martinez and Dwight King that didn't move the needle for the rankings and Blake will have some of that as well with Spence and others; however, you'd really like to see more out of the majority of the prospect pool: especially the 1st round picks. Due to the performance of the "Blake is a magician!!!" prospect pool to date, it is extremely fair to wonder why a fan would grade them as a B+ for drafting and development.
Because most fans know that it's nearly impossible to judge prospects the minute after they are drafted, most have more patience than a gnat when it comes to young players.....and most.....realize that if you aren't drafting top 15.....or in some cases top 30......your prospects aren't going to be top notch, and they adjust for that......bigger question is, what do fans HERE believe the benchmark is for "development" does a player like Trevor Lewis fit that model?
- Status
