Speculation: LA Kings News, Rumors, Roster Thread part VII
- Thread starter kingsboy11
- Start date
-
Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
- Status
Steve Zissou
I'll order you a red cap and a Speedo.
HFBoards when our PP sucks, zaps our energy, and in turns gives momentum to the opposing team coming off a penalty kill.
bland
Registered User
- Jul 1, 2004
- 8,242
- 12,606
Really Herby?
The 11, 18 and 22 picks are all most likely inside the top 10, your NHL roster decisions are all completely different and your developmental system changes from feeding kids slowly into a veteran lineup to prioritizing their path.
EVERYTHING would be different and almost certainly better and ahead of where they are now.
All The Kings Men
Registered User
- Apr 7, 2016
- 2,366
- 5,629
BUT ALSO
The entire culture changes.
The team might gain the reputation as being a more mercenary organization and one that player are already reluctant to join via free agency.
Maybe Brown Doughty and Quick demand trades. Maybe ticket sales and ratings fall off a cliff. Maybe the organization loses any semblance of identity in the marketplace (more than it already has)
I get the argument and I'm not even totally opposed to it as vehemently as others but the reality is professional sports is, has been and will continue to be about more than just the points on the board and the dollars in the paychecks.
Raccoon Jesus
We were right there
orrrrr it could just be a 10 year rebuild like any other number of organizations that did the same last decade.
Different? Absolutely. Better? The possibility exists but you can't discount the high likelihood that things are actually much, much messier.
Axl Rhoadz
Binky distributor
- Apr 5, 2011
- 5,343
- 3,959
Please don't try to throw in reality into these discussions -- this is a video game and we'll hit the 'X' button anytime we want.
King'sPawn
Enjoy the chaos
- Jul 1, 2003
- 23,189
- 24,095
Just out of curiosity, why don't you have the same fervor of trading away Drew Doughty, who has NEVER wanted to go through a rebuild? He didn't have a NTC.
You forget that Quick and Doughty are on the team, too. They'd also need to be traded, if we were to follow the same full-blown rebuild you advocated. And once again, with the way the team has developed prospects, there is no guarantee things would be "better". They'd have overpaid for UFAs in free agency and leaned on vets just like they're doing now.
The goalposts have conveniently shifted where it's no longer about trading away Kopitar, which is what you and K17 have advocated from the get go. It's now suddenly about starting the rebuild sooner.
But this is why you and K17 have been accused of disliking Kopitar in the past. The narrative of getting rid of the soft, quitting, unskilled captain who is the source of the Kings' mediocrity just doesn't fit anymore, especially when he had a career year in his newest contract but the rest of the org shit the bed. The idea of trading away Doughty has only been something you welcome "if he didn't embrace the rebuild", and you neverminded the suggestion of trading away Doughty and thinking of the possibility that Kopitar would have to embrace the rebuild.
This double standard has been prevalent over the past 6+ years, where Kopitar has, in your mind, never demanded enough of himself to be worthy of your praise.
But let's look at this significantly better rebuild:
How much better would Vilardi have been? Barring a top-5 pick, these were the players who went before him in 2017:
Cody Glass
Lias Andersson
Casey Mittelstadt
Michael Rasmussen
Owen Tippett
Here are the 10 picks before Kupari in 2018:
Evan Bouchard
Oliver Wahlstrom
Noah Dobson
Ty Dellandrea
Joel Farabee
Grigori Denisenko
Martin Kaut
Ty Smith
Liam Foudy
Jay O'Brien
What sort of franchise changers are we getting here?
As RJ said, things would have been different. There's absolutely zero guarantee it would have been any better.
cyclones22
Registered User
The thing that happens a lot is a franchise, in any sport, will trade a player of that high stature, end up with a B+ or less player in return then proceed to overpay that new player when the time comes. What's the gain? Otherwise it's a cycle of trading that roster spot over and over until someone finally comes along who is a worthy replacement. It's a slippery slope.
Herby
How could Blake have known?
The 22 pick in 2019 came through a trade, so no, it wouldn't have been in the Top 10.
The 2017 pick would have had to be Top 5 to warrant making any difference. Picks 6-11 were Glass, Lias, Mittlestadt, Rasmussen, Tippet and Vilardi. There is not a good player in that group.
2018, how much do they move up? Kopitar had an MVP caliber season, how bad are they without him? Are you bad enough to get a top 4 pick? If you fall into the other range do the Kings draft and more importantly propery develop Quinn Hughes? This one is though, the one chance where maybe you were right. Had they were able to get someone like Tkachuk, Hughes or Schevhnikov. But that also may have required trading Doughty with Kopitar.
In 19 they had a chance to draft four of the five best players in the draft and failed to do it. Even if they were one the worst team in the league its unlikely they win the lottery and get Jack Hughes. So they probably end up with either Byram or Turcotte anyways.
Keeping Kopitar did not prevent the Kings from drafting game-changing players, that was the point in my post. They had a chance to draft Nick Suzuki, Robert Thomas, Josh Norris, Trevor Zegras, Moritz Seider, Matt Boldy and Cole Caufield. They chose not to draft those players, instead choosing ones that turned out to be not as good. How is that blamed on Kopitar?
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
- Apr 6, 2006
- 32,582
- 11,766
I would discount the possibility of an endless rebuild more, if they fired Robitaille and didn't use organizational nepotism as a criteria for his replacement. I remember a speech by Obama once, "Never underestimate Luc's ability to f things up." Yes, I am sure that's what he said.
bland
Registered User
- Jul 1, 2004
- 8,242
- 12,606
You keep tipping your hand here, KP. This just isn't reasonable nor an accurate picture of the events. I have always felt that you lacked perspective when it comes to this subject but I love arguing about it with you!
For one, its a mistake to assume that the developmental strategies in place would be the same, so any argument that claims they wouldn't have had success with other picks or prospects is dead in the water.
Secondly, it is unbelievably naive to think that any prospect is going to develop the exact same from one organization to another, and that a bust is a bust is a bust. NHL history is littered with the right guy being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Hell, a very reasonable argument could be made that so many of the kids shafted here could be doing very well within other organizations right now.
Those things always seem to be tilted to a firm conclusion in this argument instead of leaving them open as variables that could have gone in any number of possible directions. They draft well, develop poorly. Why? I would suggest, and you have always seemed to agree with this EXCEPT in these Kopitar discussions, that the kids are being developed to first do no harm to the vets chances. Without those vets do you honestly think they would be making the same choices?
The reason Doughty is discussed differently has nothing whatsoever to do with the players. Anze's deal expired first, and it coincided with the team proving its window had shut. Once you commit to Kopitar it would be asinine to deal Doughty because then you are moving in two directions at once, which is what I have been railing against for the last few seasons with the high picks sitting for free agents and veteran acquisitions.
Had they traded Kopitar of course you look at the market for Doughty. But they didn't, so there just wasn't much to argue about.
And to address the last point, "different" with the undeniable room and ability for growth beats the living shit out of settling for the failures that were practically guaranteed - and the goddam inevitable rebuild happened anyway, just three years later than it could have.
You are an outstanding poster and I always respect your opinions whether I agree with them or not, but it sure seems that you would be more open to this debate if it wasn't one of your favorite players as the subject.
King'sPawn
Enjoy the chaos
- Jul 1, 2003
- 23,189
- 24,095
I appreciate your feedback and your kind words, but I think there is a lot of re-writing or ignoring going on. Please know the feeling is mutual, even when we disagree.
Why is it a mistake to assume the developmental strategies would be the same? They have a 2nd overall pick playing on the third line, multiple years in a row. They signed Danault AFTER drafting Byfield and after Vilardi started to struggle in the top-6 role. They played the vets as much as possible even when they got the 2nd and 5th overall pick.
I agree it's naive. I maintain that no two outcomes will always be the same. Heck, you might have missed my comment to the Habs fan who said that Kopitar would have helped the team more than Price. I said I can't agree with that.
But do you think that any of the "busts" in the Kings would have suddenly become franchise players to properly complete a rebuild? I'm sure the Kings could have turned a few into NHL players, but having young NHL players is different from completing a rebuild with new franchise pieces, don't you think?
I've said for years the infrastructure is the issue. And by that, I mean the development process. More on that later. But as shown above, the Kings have signed vets despite the young talent they have. Without Kopitar, they'd sign another vet to take his place. You seem to think this is the same era of Lombardi signing Scott Thornton, where the entire franchise was recovering from failed attempts to make the playoffs and doubling down on middling mediocrity.
The Kings HAD to have vets on the team. There has never been a good, successful rebuild where the rebuilding team leaned completely on the prospects. If they traded Kopitar/Doughty/etc, they'd be overpaying on some sub-replacement player to 1. stay above the cap and 2. not create a losing environment.
Drew Doughty had 3 years at $7 million cap hit on his contract just after he won the Norris. You think that wouldn't have been a great sell? Saying because Kopitar's contract ended first seems disingenuous.
You seem to forget I was also arguing with K17 for years about not trading Carter, despite him "having more value at the time." Because I felt there were bigger issues than "just getting value" and "trying to enter a rebuild."
As I mentioned at the time, I felt the Kings have not been successful at developing forwards. I still question their ability to do so, as even Kempe's career year in 2021-22 was not as productive as Toffoli's best season. Those are the two best forwards the Kings have developed since Lombardi took the helm. It has nothing to do with Carter being my "favorite player". But there's no point in hoarding assets if your developmental plan is yielding middle-six players, and only on a career year can you expect top-line production. However, Carter was a very good stabilizing presence for Pearson and Toffoli. They just never took their game to the next level, which is why I was more interested in trading them away earlier on.
Because of the Kings' situation at the time, I only felt the best time to trade Carter was when he was being outplayed by the youth, which is exactly what happened. However, it is the organization's history of not elevating forward prospects, in particular, to the next level.
My strategy has always been to leverage the veterans to be a stabilizing presence and letting the youth take over. It's only when the youth outplays the vets that you should consider trading them, but you also have to give the youth the tools to succeed and grow.
The youth isn't getting that presence. They're not getting to grow their game and have the vets help cover the mistakes and educate.
Kopitar, Doughty, and Quick are all franchise players that you don't just "trade away" to start a rebuild. And yes, Kopitar's one of my favorite all-time players, but I've also not advocated trading any vets irresponsibly or just for the sake of starting a rebuild earlier. Your criticisms of Kopitar are well-known. I'm sorry, I appreciate that you've come around to acknowledge some of Kopitar's skillsets and qualities, but I have a very hard time differentiating what you used to say about him, and what you're saying about the rebuild, and NOT think the two are related.
bland
Registered User
- Jul 1, 2004
- 8,242
- 12,606
I have always erred on the side of fiscal responsibility. I argued that it would have been better to sign Quick to a higher hit at fewer years before he signed his extension. I thought Brown's was too long as well, all argued at the time. Its not just about Anze.
I haven't "come around" on anything regarding Kopitar, I have always completely understood his qualities and importance but thought too many overvalued him. Don't forget that a lot of that BS back in the day on LGK was just screwing around with the Slovenians who joined up after Anze was drafted. Always happened the same way, you say something critical, they got all squirrely and angry about any criticism, then the fun ensued until they inevitably got banned. Fun and games.
And I never suggested dumping all the vets, they were tied into Carter, Brown, Quick, Muzzin and Martinez at the time. Clifford was still around, it wasn't going to be a bunch of kids without parents around. It was a case of recognizing the inevitability of the rebuild and knowing Kopitar would have brought in a wealth of assets in return to jump start a completely empty cupboard.
And for all of the "you never know" guys, ask yourselves this: in the cap era, hell, since the WHL absorbtion, what is the longest any franchise has gone between Cups with the same core roster? 6 years, and that was the dominant Detroit team and a Pittsburgh team that the best player in the world in Crosby and two other top 3 picks in Malkin and Fleury. It just doesn't happen. Twice in 30 years. Teams stagnate, the cost of winning is much higher than it used to be, and players aren't as driven after winning, getting paid then experiencing a down period. Its extraordinarily rare, and those Pittsburgh teams made the playoffs each year inbetween the Cups.
King'sPawn
Enjoy the chaos
- Jul 1, 2003
- 23,189
- 24,095
We'll just agree to disagree on your takes of Kopitar then. It's not worth going back years to try to bring up receipts.
Having prospects without stabilizing influences just doesn't work, in my opinion. And why not have the prospects stabilized with solid, successful veterans like Kopitar, Doughty, et al, especially while the prospects were cost-controlled on ELCs? You still had to hit the cap floor. But again, that's irrespective of the importance of solidifying the pipeline.
Odd examples you give there in the last paragraph. Detroit only traded Datsyuk away after he went back overseas, and they just traded his cap hit to Arizona. Zetterberg, Lidstrom, etc. all retired. With Pittsburgh, they've kept Crosby and Malkin for this entire time after winning multiple cups with them.
So, yeah, it's a long time in between years for cores to win cups, but you also showed two examples of teams who kept their franchise players up until retirement age instead of selling them to get more prospects. So you're just reinforcing the point that you don't deal the franchise players unceremoniously. Fleury was only traded because Murray outplayed him and was less expensive. Nobody has come close to achieving that in LA.
I think playing goalie for the Kings is harder than on many other teams, last year especially. An absolutely horrible PP (27th) and miniscule shooting percentage (last in entire NHL) meant every goal against was more devastating, putting extra pressure on making a save. Contrast this with goalies for excellent offensive teams (Top 5 GF/G: FL,TO, StL, CO, MN) who knew they could let one in and their team would get it back.
BringTheReign
Registered User
Do you have any thoughts on the non-hockey side of the equation? I know winning fixes everything and that we treat these teams like they're more than a business. However, they are just that: businesses. Jesse alluded to it in this thread, but even during the mediocrity, it means something to teams to market former champions and captains like Kopitar, Brown, Doughty, and Quick. You mentioned the other vets who could've stuck around, and there aren't any names like that in the bunch.
I guess all I'm trying to say is that I agree with parts of everyone's takes in this argument, but maybe the main reason the "twice in 30 years" you're speaking to is so rare is because the people that run these teams care much more about the conservative strategy of name and brand recognition rather than an undeniably risky strategy of blowing it up while beloved stars are still stars and trying to tank again.
It's frankly a lame and boring argument, but I feel like that could be exactly why there's truth to it. Obviously every franchise would prefer multiple Cups and perennial playoff appearances, but in a world where that's already rare a business is going to take the "aging former champs" angle over trying to market blowing it up. I think we all have to remember that a lot of fans don't care about the cycle of rebuilding. They just want to see their favorite players and have fun. They're not sickos like us arguing all day about the minutia of franchise management.
Last edited:
Sol
Smile
- Jun 30, 2017
- 25,052
- 21,322
On the opposite side of the spectrum Kings fans when Byfield scores a goal
Lol
Raccoon Jesus
We were right there
Sol
Smile
- Jun 30, 2017
- 25,052
- 21,322
Lmaoooooo that’s fair. throw in a couple goals and a fight, viagra would go out of business in socal
Herby
How could Blake have known?
Just to clarify. I would not have traded Kopitar in 2016 or 2017 whenever it was that this was discussed in this thread. It was just to close to when they were contending and still had a roster with a lot of cup winners. I like to use the “no other team would do that” line of thinking (and not selectively) when discussing the odd development decisions so it’s not fair to expect here. I don’t think a team would have traded Kopitar between 2015 and 2018 like some are advocating.
Now I do think that sometime around the deadline in 2020 to the summer of 2021 with the cups way further in the rear-view mirror and those two in the back-nines of their career there was a realistic opportunity where Blake could have gone to Doughty and/or Kopitar and been transparent and said something like
“Look, we had a couple of picks that really aren’t what we expected when we took them. There really aren’t any young impact re-enforcements coming to help us contend while you are still in your prime, so I need to get more younger high-end pieces through the draft and that means being pretty bad, how would you feel if I moved you to a contender?”
Now again, we don’t know, that conversation may have happened and both rejected the idea due to whatever reason (family etc). And then Blake felt his best chance was to go the veteran route with PD, VA and now Fiala. Another area where the Kings being North Korea combined with a media who doesn’t care limits what we know.
It also could have been where the Kings were going to go down the route they went in 19-20 (where a young player was handed a prominent role) and the team ended up picking 2nd, but when Doughty went to the media and said he was "sick of losing" or whatever it was he said it and Blake appeased him. If that is the case, I am more on the side of @bland , because you should never be letting older players dictate the moves you should make for the long-term good of the organization.
It's just tough, because Blake has made nice moves post the decision to end the rebuild to get them into playoff contention, but much like with Taylor two-decades ago there is a major concern on whether the rebuild was ended to soon. It's clearly obvious in the lockout-NHL there has been a model that numerous different teams followed that involves drafting and developing star players and taking steps to improve once those players are established, and the Kings are just not going down that path, and instead are trying to win a championship with veteran free agent and trade acquisitions added to an aging core. That seems like the type of strategy that can win a round here and there and maybe give someone a scare (again like the turn of the century Kings). But can you win a championship that way? The Kings would be the first in this era of the NHL to do it.
I would rather go with the more proven route and have tried to pick higher in 2021, 2022 and 2023. And what Drew Doughty thinks shouldn't have had any bearing on that decision.
Now I do think that sometime around the deadline in 2020 to the summer of 2021 with the cups way further in the rear-view mirror and those two in the back-nines of their career there was a realistic opportunity where Blake could have gone to Doughty and/or Kopitar and been transparent and said something like
“Look, we had a couple of picks that really aren’t what we expected when we took them. There really aren’t any young impact re-enforcements coming to help us contend while you are still in your prime, so I need to get more younger high-end pieces through the draft and that means being pretty bad, how would you feel if I moved you to a contender?”
Now again, we don’t know, that conversation may have happened and both rejected the idea due to whatever reason (family etc). And then Blake felt his best chance was to go the veteran route with PD, VA and now Fiala. Another area where the Kings being North Korea combined with a media who doesn’t care limits what we know.
It also could have been where the Kings were going to go down the route they went in 19-20 (where a young player was handed a prominent role) and the team ended up picking 2nd, but when Doughty went to the media and said he was "sick of losing" or whatever it was he said it and Blake appeased him. If that is the case, I am more on the side of @bland , because you should never be letting older players dictate the moves you should make for the long-term good of the organization.
It's just tough, because Blake has made nice moves post the decision to end the rebuild to get them into playoff contention, but much like with Taylor two-decades ago there is a major concern on whether the rebuild was ended to soon. It's clearly obvious in the lockout-NHL there has been a model that numerous different teams followed that involves drafting and developing star players and taking steps to improve once those players are established, and the Kings are just not going down that path, and instead are trying to win a championship with veteran free agent and trade acquisitions added to an aging core. That seems like the type of strategy that can win a round here and there and maybe give someone a scare (again like the turn of the century Kings). But can you win a championship that way? The Kings would be the first in this era of the NHL to do it.
I would rather go with the more proven route and have tried to pick higher in 2021, 2022 and 2023. And what Drew Doughty thinks shouldn't have had any bearing on that decision.
Last edited:
In these discussions I think a lot of people don't consider the business side. Blake and Luc took over because they convinced AEG that the Kings were still a contender and that Sutter/Lombardi were the ones holding the team back. They said as much in their introductory press conference. There is no way that Kopitar is moved in 2017-18 after they made those promises and he was definitely not going to be moved in 2018-19 after signing Kovalchuk in the offseason. 2019-20 was probably the first year he could have been moved, as that was the first real year they decided to not try to contend, with Muzzin and Toffoli traded at the deadline. It seems pretty clear that Blake and Luc convinced AEG that the team was only in need of a quick re-tool as there basically was only a season and a half between the Kings committing to a rebuild and acquiring a pair of 28 year old forwards at a premium. Convincing ownership to move on from the very players you were convinced were contenders just a couple seasons prior does not seem like it would go over well. Blake and Luc are basically tied to Kopitar and Doughty.
Of course. Some folks simply don't understand reality. Your garden variety franchise has an expectation of winning roughly 3 cups in a century. That's one every 32 years. And of course there is no actual "Law of Averages", some teams will win more, some less. Basing every decision on winning a cup is a fool's errand. You need luck to win a cup -- you get franchise players at the draft or someone turns into a franchise player in a later round. Your best players sign long term contracts before their best years. You gamble on china dolls that cost less. You swindle an idiot GM in trades. Your playoff opponent is racked with injuries. Your goalie gets red hot in the playoffs etc.Do you have any thoughts on the non-hockey side of the equation? I know winning fixes everything and that we treat these teams like they're more than a business. However, they are just that: businesses. Jesse alluded to it in this thread, but even during the mediocrity, it means something to teams to market former champions and captains like Kopitar, Brown, Doughty, and Quick. You mentioned the other vets who could've stuck around, and there aren't any names like that in the bunch.
I guess all I'm trying to say is that I agree with parts of everyone's takes in this argument, but maybe the main reason the "twice in 30 years" you're speaking to is so rare is because the people that run these teams care much more about the conservative strategy of name and brand recognition rather than an undeniably risky strategy of blowing it up while beloved stars are still stars and trying to tank again.
It's frankly a lame and boring argument, but I feel like that could be exactly why there's truth to it. Obviously every franchise would prefer multiple Cups and perennial playoff appearances, but in a world where that's already rare a business is going to take the "aging former champs" angle over trying to market blowing it up. I think we all have to remember that a lot of fans don't care about the cycle of rebuilding. They just want to see their favorite players and have fun. They're not sickos like us arguing all day about the minutia of franchise management.
Meanwhile you have a business to run...
SettlementRichie10
Registered User
- May 6, 2012
- 10,238
- 8,518
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
Beanpot Boston University vs Harvard - TD Garden, BostonWagers: 7Staked: $19,456.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
