Speculation: LA Kings Offseason Thread

[KingsHockey24]

Is this a joke?

Am I a joke to you.

 

[kingsholygrail]

I never claimed Beckham was a nobody. Nice try.

Do star players drive interest in their sport or not?

We both know the answer. It baffles me why you’re being so obstinate on this point.

Hockey, basketball, baseball, we’ve seen countless boom periods for each of these sports in America. They all correlated with a new megastar player (or players) in a big market driving interest.

Again, this is not controversial nor arguable. But if you want to argue that 2+2=5 next, we can do that, too.

The answer is no. Show your work. A lot more than just some names makes a sport popular especially in the US. The NFL had stars before the Superbowl, but it was arguably the Superbowl that really boosted the sport's popularity. Broadcasting games on TV also did a lot of work for these sports(another thing the NHL struggles with btw).

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Death, Taxes, this forum overrating flash and underrating 'boring' effectiveness.

 

[Johnny Utah]

Am I a joke to you.

I love Simmonds so hoping so this is true!

 

[Fishhead]

Kings protection list leaks

“@mayorNHL: Can confirm… LA Kings protected Kopitar, Carter, Toffoli, Pearson, Doughty, Muzzin, Martinez, Forbort #NHLExpansionDraftâ€

forums.hfboards.com

That's funny. You seemed to be in perfect agreement that Forbort was the one to protect at the time. It was "obvious" (and you were correct. It was indeed the obvious choice).

That's not in the right context, I was talking about the rumors that they might do some stupid stuff and protect Brown or Gaborik.

Unfortunately, it's difficult for me to search that far back. In fact I can't see any of my postings older than 2018 for some reason. But I posted many advanced stats illustrating just how much better Drew was playing with McNabb than others, and that Forbort wasn't the right move. I do understand and get why they did it, but I was never for it.


Like this post:

GDT: - GM#51 LA Kings vs Nashville Predators @5:30

"I personally would have protected McNabb over Forbort"

I had some great discussion back and forth with HookKing who really liked Forbort. Wish I could find those

But there's this:

Rumor: - KINGS 2018-19 Season- Luc/Rob ****Show/ Sell Everyone!! Part 3

That's only the vet unit, though. The second unit looks different damn near every time, both in terms of personnel and setup. I'd love to see what the splits are in effectiveness between the two. Which leads me to believe it is not coaching. I still don't believe Kompon ever told Kopitar to...

forums.hfboards.com

or this:

Rumor: - Planning Ahead: 2019 Off-Season Part 2

Forbort looked ok as a rookie. Im very critical of his play and overall think he sucks. But I am willing to give him benefit of the doubt and hope he has a solid year. Chalk up last season as a sophomore-ish slump and move forward. The problem with him is he has many problems... Bad in the d...

forums.hfboards.com

or this:

2019-20 Kings News/Rumors

a and penner was not a rental. I had no issue with that price tag, Losing Hickey on waivers pissed me off almost as much as drafting him in the first place did (although my preference was Alzner and look how that is currently). What other 4th overall pick goes on waivers that soon after his...

forums.hfboards.com

or this:

GDT: - GM#51 LA Kings vs Nashville Predators @5:30

Forbort is fine defensively. And gets a lot of D zone starts and faces top competition when paired with DD. A lot of teams would love to have him. Imo For a dman who is 6’4” and 215, you would think he’d be stronger or would use his body more, but he doesn’t. He also gets burned so often by...

forums.hfboards.com

or:

2017-18 Kings News/Rumors/Tidbits

Remember the pockets of fans who wanted Bogosian or Pietrangelo ahead of Doughty in 2008? Fun times.

forums.hfboards.com

I was 100% on the keep McNabb over Forbort bandwagon.

 

[Johnny Utah]

Don’t forget it was McNabb who fought Tkachuk for the Doughty cold shoulder.

 

[SettlementRichie10]

The answer is no. Show your work. A lot more than just some names makes a sport popular especially in the US. The NFL had stars before the Superbowl, but it was arguably the Superbowl that really boosted the sport's popularity. Broadcasting games on TV also did a lot of work for these sports(another thing the NHL struggles with btw).

https://fadeawayworld.net/nba-media/the-combined-value-of-all-29-nba-teams-in-1998-was-6-billion-michael-jordan-had-a-10-billion-estimated-impact-on-the-u-s-economy-in-the-same-year

I found this link in literally five seconds of Googling. Jordan basically doubled the exposure and revenue of basketball on his own, in addition to having a sizable impact on the American economy. But sure. Individual star athletes don’t drive interest.

I’ve never disputed that several factors play into the success of a sport. And one of those factors is star players in big markets driving interest. I’ve even given you a topical example of this - Messi in Miami - which you dismissed because it didn’t compute with your nonsense position. Here’s another source on that, by the way: With Messi, Attention Comes in All Forms.

Babe Ruth in New York. Wayne Gretzky in LA. Magic and Bird in LA and Boston. Jordan in Chicago. All of these players had measurable economic impacts on their sport. We do not have the sunbelt expansion without Gretzky (source: https://www.bizjournals.com/losange...etzkys-trade-to-l-a-30-years-ago-changed.html).

It’s really pathetic that you’re continuing to dispute this.

 

[redcard]

I went back and read every one of my old posts and I've been right 100% of the time.

Just thought I'd save y'all the trouble.

 

[Sol]

Can someone explain to me how David Beckham and Messi got dragged into the conversation?

I don’t know who said it yes Beckham was star or even a superstar. It’s no shock that his looks and his wife being a spicegirl had a big boost to his reputation. However Beckham never had remotely anything close to the stardom Messi has.

Messi is most likely the most popular athlete whos ever lived. And Ronaldo is a close second. Beckham wasn’t a bigger star than Zidane for example. He was more like Pirlo. Even Zlatan Ibrahimovich was a bigger star than Beckham.


Messi joined Inter Miami and nearly single handedly won them the trophy. And the sales on Apple for the MLS subscriptions are some ridiculous figure.

 

[deaderhead28]

Well yeah, that's what I'm saying. It's about access, and the NHL product itself.

I just think "the NHL doesn't market its stars" is the laziest default criticism you always hear on the these boards when it's obvious why hockey is more popular in certain areas.


I know you're in the IE, so am I. I wonder if we're similar ages. I just turned 40. Roller hockey participation is WAY lower in the IE now than when I was a kid. On the other hand, we do have an AHL team now.

A few years ago I was playing roller in Fontana for awhile, but that dried up also.

In California I think there's more youth ice hockey participation. It seems to me that higher end organized ice hockey has increased, but overall casual play hasn't shown much increase if at all.

When Gretzky was traded to LA in 1988, there was 27M people in this state. Today there's 39M. So naturally there's going to be an increase whether sport is more popular or not on a percentage basis.

I just don't understand what kind of marketing is going to make hockey significantly and sustainably more popular. Even LA winning the SC seemed to have minimal impact.

Nice to see another I.E native who grew up in the area. My mom still lives in the area but I left a long time ago due to traffic and overcrowding.

 

[Statto]

I don't care enough to read the discussion but all I'll say is that I miss Brayden McNabb's massive hip checks every other game.

Haven't had a player do that since.

Great hit, but a check with the hip. This is a hip check…




Proper hip checks mean the guy flips. A dying art.

 

[Statto]

Again, you guys just view this through hindsight. Forbort didn't pan out, yes. That doesn't make McNabb the better option in 2018.

David Beckham is considered an all-time great. Maybe not THE best, but claiming he was a nobody? Come on, man. He was the most famous soccer player to play in the MLS until Messi showed up and it had the exact same fervor then as it does now, which is temporary.

Can’t agree in the slightest. He was a top player and seems a great bloke. One of the best crossers of the ball around and hit a great free kick. One of Englands best players of his era, if not the best, but never an all-time great. As good as he was, he was overrated by the media badly who couldn’t get enough of ’Posh and Becks’… they were obsessed. Messi is on a completely different planet and even now is better than prime Beckham. I completely agree though, certainly not a nobody and was definitely a coup for the MLS. The media thing with Beckham is highlighted by the lack of impact Gerrard had when he came to the MLS. Gerrard at his peak was arguably the better player, who carried Liverpool on his back in a way Beckham never had to do yet he never got close to generating the same excitement. There’s not a lot between them as players, even if you prefer Beckham, but the hype train is very different.

To stay on topic a bit, the choice between McNabb and Forbert isn’t that big of an issue as we are talking about 2 players that were never going to move the needle in LA.

 

[psych3man]

Messi is most likely the most popular athlete whos ever lived.

Muhammed Ali.
No one close.

 

[bland]

Can’t agree in the slightest. He was a top player and seems a great bloke. One of the best crossers of the ball around and hit a great free kick. One of Englands best players of his era, if not the best, but never an all-time great. As good as he was, he was overrated by the media badly who couldn’t get enough of ’Posh and Becks’… they were obsessed. Messi is on a completely different planet and even now is better than prime Beckham. I completely agree though, certainly not a nobody and was definitely a coup for the MLS. The media thing with Beckham is highlighted by the lack of impact Gerrard had when he came to the MLS. Gerrard at his peak was arguably the better player, who carried Liverpool on his back in a way Beckham never had to do yet he never got close to generating the same excitement. There’s not a lot between them as players, even if you prefer Beckham, but the hype train is very different.

To stay on topic a bit, the choice between McNabb and Forbert isn’t that big of an issue as we are talking about 2 players that were never going to move the needle in LA.

Beckham lost a lot of his model-level mystique every time he opened his mouth. Dude sounded like an 8 year old.

 

[johnjm22]

That's not in the right context, I was talking about the rumors that they might do some stupid stuff and protect Brown or Gaborik.

Unfortunately, it's difficult for me to search that far back. In fact I can't see any of my postings older than 2018 for some reason. But I posted many advanced stats illustrating just how much better Drew was playing with McNabb than others, and that Forbort wasn't the right move. I do understand and get why they did it, but I was never for it.


Like this post:

GDT: - GM#51 LA Kings vs Nashville Predators @5:30

"I personally would have protected McNabb over Forbort"

I had some great discussion back and forth with HookKing who really liked Forbort. Wish I could find those

But there's this:

Rumor: - KINGS 2018-19 Season- Luc/Rob ****Show/ Sell Everyone!! Part 3

That's only the vet unit, though. The second unit looks different damn near every time, both in terms of personnel and setup. I'd love to see what the splits are in effectiveness between the two. Which leads me to believe it is not coaching. I still don't believe Kompon ever told Kopitar to...

forums.hfboards.com

or this:

Rumor: - Planning Ahead: 2019 Off-Season Part 2

Forbort looked ok as a rookie. Im very critical of his play and overall think he sucks. But I am willing to give him benefit of the doubt and hope he has a solid year. Chalk up last season as a sophomore-ish slump and move forward. The problem with him is he has many problems... Bad in the d...

forums.hfboards.com

or this:

2019-20 Kings News/Rumors

a and penner was not a rental. I had no issue with that price tag, Losing Hickey on waivers pissed me off almost as much as drafting him in the first place did (although my preference was Alzner and look how that is currently). What other 4th overall pick goes on waivers that soon after his...

forums.hfboards.com

or this:

GDT: - GM#51 LA Kings vs Nashville Predators @5:30

Forbort is fine defensively. And gets a lot of D zone starts and faces top competition when paired with DD. A lot of teams would love to have him. Imo For a dman who is 6’4” and 215, you would think he’d be stronger or would use his body more, but he doesn’t. He also gets burned so often by...

forums.hfboards.com

or:

2017-18 Kings News/Rumors/Tidbits

Remember the pockets of fans who wanted Bogosian or Pietrangelo ahead of Doughty in 2008? Fun times.

forums.hfboards.com

I was 100% on the keep McNabb over Forbort bandwagon.

With all due respect Fishhead, you're clearly responding to the announced protection list and calling it the obvious choice.

That doesn't mean you didn't like McNabb more, I'll take your word for it that you did, but it is an acknowledgement that protecting Forbort over McNabb made sense. Which was kind of my point.

The search function for this site does indeed suck, but all the links you provided are well after the expansion draft. My argument was "at the time".

 

[johnjm22]

I think what drives interest in sports leagues is storylines. Storylines are often driven by stars.

The 1993-94 season was the most popular the NHL ever was in my lifetime.

You had the big storyline; Rangers trying to win their first cup in 54 years after being the best team in the regular season. NY being the largest market added to the hype. The NJ/NY 7 game conference final was a banger. Most of the US media is concentrated in those markets and they ate it up. Plus you had the Messier guarantee.

In the other Conference you had an underdog Canadian team (which drew the entire interest of Canada) going on an awesome playoff run with the leading goal scorer in the league. Bure was the most exciting hockey player on earth.

At the time, the NHL was featured heavily on ESPN. They were always talking about the NHL to promote the broadcasts, and their coverage was fantastic.

Gary Thorne and Bill Clement on the mic. And that kick ass theme music. It was a great broadcast.

This was also during the days when people only had like 30 channels of TV. ESPN was THE sports channel. Nobody was really using the internet yet. This gave the NHL lots of national attention.

Inline skating became a fad, and inline hockey with it, further generating interest in the sport. You also had the Mighty Ducks film 1992 which became a huge hit as a video rental for years. I think this helped make hockey "cool" with kids.

Conversely, the NBA laid an egg that season. Jordan was gone, and the NBA product had devolved into a "foul fest" with the boring Houston rockets taking the championship.

I don't think the NHL can match that level of national attention/hype ever again. It was just a confluence of events that came together at the right time.

 

[Surf Nutz]

Anyone know what radio station will carry the Kings, since they apparently won't be on tv/net?

 

[Herby]

Anyone know what radio station will carry the Kings, since they apparently won't be on tv/net?

Is this serious?

 

[FeartheFur]

No Bally sports?

 

[BigKing]

I think what drives interest in sports leagues is storylines. Storylines are often driven by stars.

The 1993-94 season was the most popular the NHL ever was in my lifetime.

You had the big storyline; Rangers trying to win their first cup in 54 years after being the best team in the regular season. NY being the largest market added to the hype. The NJ/NY 7 game conference final was a banger. Most of the US media is concentrated in those markets and they ate it up. Plus you had the Messier guarantee.

In the other Conference you had an underdog Canadian team (which drew the entire interest of Canada) going on an awesome playoff run with the leading goal scorer in the league. Bure was the most exciting hockey player on earth.

At the time, the NHL was featured heavily on ESPN. They were always talking about the NHL to promote the broadcasts, and their coverage was fantastic.

Gary Thorne and Bill Clement on the mic. And that kick ass theme music. It was a great broadcast.

This was also during the days when people only had like 30 channels of TV. ESPN was THE sports channel. Nobody was really using the internet yet. This gave the NHL lots of national attention.

Inline skating became a fad, and inline hockey with it, further generating interest in the sport. You also had the Mighty Ducks film 1992 which became a huge hit as a video rental for years. I think this helped make hockey "cool" with kids.

Conversely, the NBA laid an egg that season. Jordan was gone, and the NBA product had devolved into a "foul fest" with the boring Houston rockets taking the championship.

I don't think the NHL can match that level of national attention/hype ever again. It was just a confluence of events that came together at the right time.

That was also a year after Gretzky and LA went to the Finals. More importantly, Jordan retired that year and then you had the combo of a big star in Messier in the biggest market. Cure the SI cover of "NHL Hot, NBA Not".

Then the league decided to squander the only time it was "Hot" by having a lockout. Lose half a season, Jordan comes back before the NBA playoffs, and the Devils ruin everyone's good time.

Lindros was a real big deal as well. Stars matter. For the NHL to be big in the US, the biggest stars need to be in big US markets. McDavid and Matthews playing up north does jack shit for the NHL down here.

I don't have numbers to back it up so maybe it just feels this way because the Kings were relevant at the same time, but the league seemed more popular from 2010 through the end of Chicago being relevant. Kane being a dynamic player in a big US market mattered.

 

[Sol]

Muhammed Ali.
No one close.

Messi has definitely eclipsed Muhammad Ali. Messi’s international fame is insane. Messi is legit a world wide icon while Ali’s fame was more so just the UK and North America. And thanks to technology and social media I am absolutely certain there’s no other athlete in history who has WORLD wide recognition like Messi. People forget that Michael Jordan while being an insane athlete wasn’t as a world wide figure as someone like Messi. I think people get way too caught up in North America media hype train. I guarantee you there’s many people in South America and Africa who have no idea who Jordan is but know of Messi. People forget how big soccer is imo just because American soccer is ass.

 

[Surf Nutz]

Is this serious?

Dear Herbz.

I set the bar low to be disappointed up front.
It will be nice if I am wrong./

Yours in continued mutual support of Rob Blake and all he does.
The one and only, Surf Nutz

 

[KingsFan7824]

That was also a year after Gretzky and LA went to the Finals. More importantly, Jordan retired that year and then you had the combo of a big star in Messier in the biggest market. Cure the SI cover of "NHL Hot, NBA Not".

Then the league decided to squander the only time it was "Hot" by having a lockout. Lose half a season, Jordan comes back before the NBA playoffs, and the Devils ruin everyone's good time.

Lindros was a real big deal as well. Stars matter. For the NHL to be big in the US, the biggest stars need to be in big US markets. McDavid and Matthews playing up north does jack shit for the NHL down here.

I don't have numbers to back it up so maybe it just feels this way because the Kings were relevant at the same time, but the league seemed more popular from 2010 through the end of Chicago being relevant. Kane being a dynamic player in a big US market mattered.

The PA went on strike prior to the 92 playoffs before the league chose the lockout path. And not coincidentally, Lindros made his power move a year before that, just as the PA was getting new, more militant leadership, after Eagleson got the boot.

 

[Fishhead]

With all due respect Fishhead, you're clearly responding to the announced protection list and calling it the obvious choice.

That doesn't mean you didn't like McNabb more, I'll take your word for it that you did, but it is an acknowledgement that protecting Forbort over McNabb made sense. Which was kind of my point.

The search function for this site does indeed suck, but all the links you provided are well after the expansion draft. My argument was "at the time".

I didn't like the Forbort pick since it was made. I did understand why the list was what it was, I just didn't agree with it.

And I certainly was talking about Gaborik and Brown. It would never even enter my mind to protect Forbort over McNabb. I'm a stathead, obviously, and Doughty's stats with McNabb were through the roof. He just won a Norris while being paired with him. Made zero sense to me.

I wouldn't expect you to believe it, though. I wish I could find the old posts.

 

[kingsholygrail]

https://fadeawayworld.net/nba-media/the-combined-value-of-all-29-nba-teams-in-1998-was-6-billion-michael-jordan-had-a-10-billion-estimated-impact-on-the-u-s-economy-in-the-same-year

I found this link in literally five seconds of Googling. Jordan basically doubled the exposure and revenue of basketball on his own, in addition to having a sizable impact on the American economy. But sure. Individual star athletes don’t drive interest.

I’ve never disputed that several factors play into the success of a sport. And one of those factors is star players in big markets driving interest. I’ve even given you a topical example of this - Messi in Miami - which you dismissed because it didn’t compute with your nonsense position. Here’s another source on that, by the way: With Messi, Attention Comes in All Forms.

Babe Ruth in New York. Wayne Gretzky in LA. Magic and Bird in LA and Boston. Jordan in Chicago. All of these players had measurable economic impacts on their sport. We do not have the sunbelt expansion without Gretzky (source: https://www.bizjournals.com/losange...etzkys-trade-to-l-a-30-years-ago-changed.html).

It’s really pathetic that you’re continuing to dispute this.

All of these examples are players that rose up to the top echelons of sports that were already established and popular. I think you're missing my point entirely. Messi is going to generate a ton of money for Miami. Messi is not going to make Americans love soccer.