Speculation: LA Kings Offseason Thread

[All The Kings Men]

Did any of you even listen to the segment?

 

[Surf Nutz]

Did any of you even listen to the segment?

no
Down Boy!
Roll over and play dead..
Shake a paw...

 

[Statto]

Did any of you even listen to the segment?

Not yet which is why I haven’t commented. I doubt he’s actually ’blaming’ in the context of Quick doing anything wrong but I’ll listen to it before having a valid view.

 

[Johnny Utah]

Did any of you even listen to the segment?

I did. And thank god Zach said Englund brings something the Kings don't have and mentioned putting him at forward. Good idea. The Kings are softer on D, but pretty soft at forward also.

Seems like the Av's blogger/reporter was a big fan of Englund's.

 

[SmytheKing]

Really? I wouldn’t lump Gibson in with them. Gibson did extremely well while going in every night knowing he was going to get lit up like a Christmas tree. The Ducks were bleeding the most high danger scoring chances and shots against last year and the year before they up there as well. I am sure that every ducks fan would say that he was the only one who came to play. I think Gibson can be dramatic but I don’t think he’s a mental midget.

Even Quick in 2014 was pretty mediocre during the playoffs. I remember the Kings we’re winning in spite of him not being able to make many saves at all.

Just looking at all the stats now from 2014-2015 playoffs his numbers were only better than Bryzgalov.

1		Jonathan Quick	LAK	27	26	2.58	0.911

I'm not sure about that. If you remove the first three games against San Jose, Quick had a 2.21 GAA and a .920 save percentage. That's marginally behind only Rask (1.99 and .928 in 12 games) and Lundqvist (2.14 and .927 in 25 games).

 

[Sol]

I'm not sure about that. If you remove the first three games against San Jose, Quick had a 2.21 GAA and a .920 save percentage. That's marginally behind only Rask (1.99 and .928 in 12 games) and Lundqvist (2.14 and .927 in 25 games).

I’m sure you can make a lot of stats more palatable if you remove instances you don’t like. I’m sure if we did the same for other goalies then the results would be different as well.

 

[kingsfan28]

I miss having actual reporters who covered the team without any bias. Fans used to be critical of the likes of Helene Elliott, but she was one of the best writers who covered the team. No more Lisa Dillman, or Steve Springer, or Rick Sadowski, or Lonnie White, or Rich Hammond, or Mike Bresnahan.

Whatever is remaining for local hockey coverage is now left to Eric Stephens and a handful of bloggers who are clearly biased.

Hammond was a hack in a poorly fitted suit who's snark in covering the Kings was 2nd only to Helen Helene Helane Elliotts. Don't miss him one bit.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Hammond was a hack in a poorly fitted suit who's snark in covering the Kings was 2nd only to Helen Helene Helane Elliotts. Don't miss him one bit.

That’s an interesting take. He did just fine covering the Kings for the Daily News, and started the LA Kings Insider blog before it became an official position for the Kings. Why such animosity over a reporter?

At least they covered the Kings and shared useful information back when newspapers were a thing. Unless you prefer the minimal coverage they get now.

 

[SmytheKing]

I’m sure you can make a lot of stats more palatable if you remove instances you don’t like. I’m sure if we did the same for other goalies then the results would be different as well.

You said he was mediocre during the entire playoffs. I removed the first three games out of the 26 he played that year. It's not to make "stats more palatable", it's pointing out his .850 save percentage and 5.78 GAA during the first three games weren't indicative of his entire playoff year and that probably the next 23 games were more in line with how he actually played.

You're free to keep believing he played no better than Bryzgalov however.

For the record, both Lundqvist and Rask would have worse stats if you removed their first three games as well.

 

[Sol]

You said he was mediocre during the entire playoffs. I removed the first three games out of the 26 he played that year. It's not to make "stats more palatable", it's pointing out his .850 save percentage and 5.78 GAA during the first three games weren't indicative of his entire playoff year and that probably the next 23 games were more in line with how he actually played.

You're free to keep believing he played no better than Bryzgalov however.

For the record, both Lundqvist and Rask would have worse stats if you removed their first three games as well.

You’re removing his worst games intentionally. They just happen to be the first three. I don’t see a purpose of removing his bad games whenever the Kings had to pull off a historical comeback because JQ got his back blown out 3-0 to the Sharks. He was mediocre for the playoffs. He wasn’t very impressive at all. The Kings won that year because Gaborik went crazy. I don’t think bending history and removing Quicks worst games equates to him being better than the other goalies. Especially whenever you can remove the other goalies worst performances. Makes no sense.




It’s not really debatable that the Kings won the second cup due to their offensive prowess. Nothing else.

 

[kingsfan28]

Just like his shot, high and wide...

 

[Little Psycho]

Drew takes his high school year book comment “never change” so seriously

 

[BigKing]

Really? I wouldn’t lump Gibson in with them. Gibson did extremely well while going in every night knowing he was going to get lit up like a Christmas tree. The Ducks were bleeding the most high danger scoring chances and shots against last year and the year before they up there as well. I am sure that every ducks fan would say that he was the only one who came to play. I think Gibson can be dramatic but I don’t think he’s a mental midget.

Even Quick in 2014 was pretty mediocre during the playoffs. I remember the Kings we’re winning in spite of him not being able to make many saves at all.

Just looking at all the stats now from 2014-2015 playoffs his numbers were only better than Bryzgalov.

1		Jonathan Quick	LAK	27	26	2.58	0.911

An argument can be made that the Kings had to beat the three best teams in the league that season just to get to the SCF. Boston and Pittsburgh in the East had great seasons but both bounced in the second round while the two at the top of the Central in Colorado and St. Louis were bounced in Round 1. Goal differential and wins are pretty favorable to the three teams the Kings beat.

All of that is to say that Quick had to go through the top (Chicago), second (Anaheim), and fifth highest scoring teams (San Jose tied with Pittsburgh) just to get to the SCF where he tossed a 9.298 SV%, including not allowing a goal in the 3rd period or any of the multiple OT periods.

He wasn't lights out every game but there is a reason: they played maybe the toughest road of any SCF winner since the lockout. Those high-octane offenses are going to score some goals and it wasn't because he was horrible: the Kings overall got worked in some of those games, namely the two in SJ to start things off.

Saying they won in spite of him is completely incorrect.

 

[FSL KINGS]

You guys are stressing out about Cal way too much. According to Eklund, Blake is all over the goalie situation.

The Kings Still Trying to Get Saros​

Hearing the Kings have made multiple attempts to see about the availability Preds goalie Saros. The Preds want three pieces… A top 6 forward, prospect D, and first round pick
Source: Eklund

 

[KingsHockey24]

You guys are stressing out about Cal way too much. According to Eklund, Blake is all over the goalie situation.

Arvidsson, Spence, and a 1st.

 

[KopitarGOAT420]

Bjornfot had 0 goals, 6 Pims and was a -12 two seasons ago.

He doesn’t score, doesn’t hit, doesn’t fight. What’s the point?

Alright I'll bite. Bjornfot is *supposed to be* excellent defensively and play a smart 200ft game. He was never intended to be an offensive defenseman and also never really labeled as a 'sandpaper' guy who'd punch you in the face.

He was drafted as a defensive defenseman and the scouting report was essentially:
- smooth/strong skater
- smart player/good hockey IQ... great positioning and great at breaking up plays
- great character / leadership

You can use players like that. The problem is, we haven't really seen these things at the NHL level other than his first year or two when we were all praising him for his poise with the puck and ability to make good reads.

So I understand some of the Bjornfot 'hate'... But also, as is the case with many players/prospects and as is especially the case with defensive defenseman, sometimes these things take time.

And with Bjornfot, I think it'd be a little foolish to think we've seen the best from him and to think there's no chance for him to still turn out to be a really solid player.

When Toby was drafted, the main comparable I remember hearing was Ryan McDonagh - Another guy who doesn't fight / get in your face, isn't really known for offensive ability, but is just a REALLY solid 2 way or defensive defenseman and also known to be a solid leader. I know comparables when it comes to prospects can be pretty flawed.... But just for the hell of it, lets look at McDonagh.

After being drafted, McDonagh played 3 years of college hockey at Wisconsin with a (college) career high of 18 points in 43 games.

In his next season (his draft +4 season), he split time between the AHL and NHL and had 9 points in 40 NHL games and 8 points in 38 AHL games. So a total of 17 points in 78 pro games. Tobias Bjornfot in his D+4 season had 13 points in 60 pro games. Overall, pretty similar.

Obviously McDonagh took a step in his D+5 season and emerged as a solid top 4 d-man.... But when you look at the first couple years of both players, there's honestly not a huge difference. And there's absolutely a chance Bjornfot 'finally' settles in as a 22 year old next year and ends up being a pretty good player.

I think we'd all be pretty damn happy if Bjornfot ends up turning into even remotely as good of a d-man as McDonagh. That would be huge for this team.

One of the most frustrating things about these boards is that a large number of posters seem to look at what a 19-22 year old player did LAST year and toss up their hands like "Well, this guy is never going to amount to anything", when that player is still actively developing and absolutely has the potential to grow and IMPROVE. I don't know if it's an "I don't want to get my hopes up" thing or an "I want so desperately to be *right* about my evaluation of X player" thing, but it's pretty weird to me. These guys are young. They can (and often do) improve. Very rarely is a player a finished product by the time they're 21 years old. So maybe lets give these guys a chance before we start writing them off.

 

[Johnny Utah]

McDonagh typically puts up about 30 points, plays mean and hits.

 

[KopitarGOAT420]

McDonagh typically puts up about 30 points, plays mean and hits.

And for all we know, Bjornfot will too in his prime

 

[chris kontos]

2X stanley cup champion. conn smythe trophy winner. olympic silver medalist. was the absolute best goaltender EVER when the mony's on the line except for maybe hasek.
its just difficult to hear and read this great player being blamed for really anything professionally.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

You’re removing his worst games intentionally. They just happen to be the first three. I don’t see a purpose of removing his bad games whenever the Kings had to pull off a historical comeback because JQ got his back blown out 3-0 to the Sharks. He was mediocre for the playoffs. He wasn’t very impressive at all. The Kings won that year because Gaborik went crazy. I don’t think bending history and removing Quicks worst games equates to him being better than the other goalies. Especially whenever you can remove the other goalies worst performances. Makes no sense.




It’s not really debatable that the Kings won the second cup due to their offensive prowess. Nothing else.

LMAO and you guys told me I was nuts when I told you Sol kept harping on Quick being a bad goalie

 

[Vote4Lubo]

LMAO and you guys told me I was nuts when I told you Sol kept harping on Quick being a bad goalie

Well Sol harps on everybody(EVERYBODY)throughout the season. He's consistent with it and I appreciate his work. And yes you are nuts.

 

[Chazz Reinhold]

McDonagh typically puts up about 30 points, plays mean and hits.

He neither “plays mean” nor “hits”—at least not any more than Bjornfot (each has averaged EXACTLY 3.24 hits/60 since 2020-21, and McDonagh’s yearly average in the years prior to that has been between 2.3 and 4.4 hits/60 with most seasons generally at 3.something). Other than that, you either didn’t read the dude’s in-depth and reasoned analysis or you failed to comprehend the entire point he was making.

 

[Ollie Weeks]

Unga bunga

 

[raswilliam]

 

[Johnny Utah]

He neither “plays mean” nor “hits”—at least not any more than Bjornfot (each has averaged EXACTLY 3.24 hits/60 since 2020-21, and McDonagh’s yearly average in the years prior to that has been between 2.3 and 4.4 hits/60 with most seasons generally at 3.something). Other than that, you either didn’t read the dude’s in-depth and reasoned analysis or you failed to comprehend the entire point he was making.

I read it. Bjornfot still sucks and I expect Englund on the 3rd pair.