But wouldn't you want a subdued voice anyway?
Let's say you get rid of Kopitar and bring in, say, Tkachuk. More intense and vocal. Asshole. Mean.
Then you have a one-sided locker room again and need to bring in other voices to bring balance.
It sounds more like you want to make a change to make a change, despite it conflicting with your statement of different temperments necessary.
The Kings won with Brown and Kopitar as leaders before. I think it's absurd to argue that their removal is necessary in order for the team to be competitive.
Lets be really honest here.
The Kings didn't win with Brown and Kopitar as leaders, they won by adding in a real leadership core to those two.
Neither Brown or Kopitar had/have ever won a playoff series without all of the outside hires earmarked for their leadership abilities - all of whom won plenty without Anze and Dustin. The Cup Core were allowed to be just who they were in that brief era while the outside hires carried the heaviest burden. Every other opportunity has ended in failure without them. Obviously there is a LOT more to it than that, but the lack of leadership and accountability preceding and following those glorious three years has been staggering. Being a respected role model is a different animal from being a galvanizing, proactive agent. Doesn't mean they are "bad" people, but that also doesn't mean that "bad" people can't be good leaders.
And it isn't a conflicting statement at all, just one made in the brief time I had available.
Ideally you want multiple types of voices saying the same things. The Kings do not have that here ' its a glass ceiling hierarchy calling the shots while the kids coming up who need to stretch their wings who are placed into situations that do not allow them to take ownership of the team. Its a one voice system here that does not allow for growth, just following the line dictated by those with the retirement contracts.
They do not have the cap to add established leadership. It is going to need to come from within, and I don't think I am alone in stating that there is a pretty obvious pecking order. Danault is probably the best example here. Pretty much carried Montreal's baggage on his own in the Covid Cup year, but has fallen into that muted, passionless tone established here over the last decade. He plays with that heart on his sleeve, but the very next shift from every other line falls right back into that heavily controlled, dialed down style of play that negates the advantages gained by his line. Every time, all the time.
It baffles me why you can be so logical about virtually everything else, then eschew any critical thinking about Kopitar. He is a problematic focal point that would be an outstanding lieutenant in someone else's brigade. But as the leader? No, thanks, it does not work.
