Kings News: Marian Gaborik (with 50% Retained) to Kings for Matt Frattin + 2nd + Cond 3rd

[Herby]

He didn't work out, but at the time it appeared like a fair deal. But most people will complain and act like Dean didn't take the best offer possible. And you can bet money on Matt Read's name being mentioned.

It wasn't so much that they acquired Frattin, it was the fact that he was gift wrapped a spot on a line with Jeff Carter, when it was clearly obvious that Pearson or TT would have been a much better fit on that line.

 

[KingLB]

But those guys had a history of excelling and succeeding as scorers and had proven they belong there. Unlike a Trent Klatt or Erik Rasmussen who were trying to be forced in as top six forwards on a team of pretenders.

Exactly. Bargain bin <> dumpster dive. DT was constantly trying to turn straw into gold. Whereas DL was restoring fine art.

I guess at this point your just arguing semantics. Bargain bin/dumpster dive, whatever...if your giving up a 2nd rounder for a top 6 player. And in both those cases a first liner. You were not paying the going rates.

 

[KingLB]

It wasn't so much that they acquired Frattin, it was the fact that he was gift wrapped a spot on a line with Jeff Carter, when it was clearly obvious that Pearson or TT would have been a much better fit on that line.

I feel like this is the Richards thread all over again. Frattin had one of the best preseasons of any King player. TT underwhelming. To say it was handed to Frattin is re-writing history.

 

[Herby]

I feel like this is the Richards thread all over again. Frattin had one of the best preseasons of any King player. TT underwhelming. To say it was handed to Frattin is re-writing history.

Even if you were right and he did earn the job based on camp, his leash was way way to long during the season, which obviously wouldn't fall on Lombardi, but that second line that started last year was a train wreck from pretty much game one on.

And Frattin's NHL history wasn't much to write him about, he was 25 years old at the time of the trade and had never been able to establish himself on mostly bad Toronto teams. He was someone who has a 30 goal type shot, but not much else, he could have served a purpose on the Kings as a bottom six scoring type with maybe a chance to grow into more. That is what I originally hoped the point of the deal was, the Kings bottom six literally didn't score at all in 2013 playoffs and I was hoping Frattin was going to help fix that, didn't expect him to be miscast as a top six at the expense of TT. But it's all moot now, the Kings lineup is complete going into the year with 12-11-23 and 70-77-73 as the top six and Frattin is back in Toronto, so it all worked out in the end.

 

[cyclones22]

I guess at this point your just arguing semantics. Bargain bin/dumpster dive, whatever...if your giving up a 2nd rounder for a top 6 player. And in both those cases a first liner. You were not paying the going rates.

My point was DT was acquiring guys he hoped could be better than they ever were. DL acquired some guys who were previously good to great who fell off for whatever reasons.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

He was given an opportunity but let's not forget how often Frattin was a healthy scratch and out of the lineup and how well King played in a top six role with Kopitar and Carter.

Frattin wasn't brought in to be a top six forward, more or less, just a healthy body with potential who was brought in as a throw in along with a 2nd for Bernier. It was slim pickings as to what trades to make with a suitor for Bernier.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

It wasn't so much that they acquired Frattin, it was the fact that he was gift wrapped a spot on a line with Jeff Carter, when it was clearly obvious that Pearson or TT would have been a much better fit on that line.

Well, in Frattin's defense, he did play well in pre-season and Toffoli didn't. Of course it wouldn't play out that way during the regular season, but Frattin did show some skill in the early going then quickly played his way out of the lineup.

 

[Herby]

Well, in Frattin's defense, he did play well in pre-season and Toffoli didn't. Of course it wouldn't play out that way during the regular season, but Frattin did show some skill in the early going then quickly played his way out of the lineup.

I would still rather go off of past performance and overall skill level. Toffoli played pretty well with Carter during the 2013 WCF, really thought they should have started the year together, thankfully they finally fixed that by the end of the season.

Frattin wasn't exactly a young kid, and had never really established himself as a scoring line player, I didn't mind the trade, just expected Frattin to be playing a different role than top six.

 

[KingsFan7824]

The difference between Taylor and Lombardi besides the painfully obvious is that Taylor tried to tell King fans what they would be seeing while Lombardi just pulled back the curtain and said take a look. That's why Taylor hasn't been a GM since and might not ever get a nod again, he has tunnel vision, he was stuck on size and was in denial when it came to skill or upside.

Taylor was probably hired as the GM just because of his name. Came in soon after Gretzky got traded, the Kings were horrible from top to bottom, they weren't spending a ton of money, etc. I'm not saying Taylor was a great GM, but he had a few moments working in a different environment than what the NHL is today.

Taylor was the Kings GM 3 years after he retired. He was a player. Lombardi was more of an executive. He slowly went through the process before he ever got a GM job.

Taylor certainly had some bad luck with injuries but his drafting was awful up until his final draft.

Between 2001 and 2004 the Kings had 7 first round picks and ended up drafting one player who stuck with the team, and that includes three picks in 2003, the best draft in most of our lifetimes.

Dave salvaged his legacy in 2005, and the Kings have zero cups without Kopitar and Quick, but those previous years sealed his own fate.

Just look at how many older Europeans the Kings drafted during Taylor's time. Visnovsky, Lilja, Kaberle, Pirnes, Bednar, Huet. That's because the Kings didn't have anything from the early 90's drafts, and when they started to build something in the farm system in the late 90's, whatever it was, they ended up trading it for Palffy. In the early 00's, the Kings were a playoff team, weren't a huge free agent player, and got some cheap veteran European talent, hoping it would work.

Two different worlds. Cap vs. no cap. Lombardi is management, Taylor is a player. Lombardi runs an organization from the ground up, Taylor was thrown into an almost impossible situation, for him or the Kings. I'm guessing if Lombardi got the Kings job in 1997, the Kings are probably about what the Sharks were back then. The Kings ended up sort of like that with Taylor anyway.

The cap allows a GM to actually be a GM, not just a guy handing out huge checks. Lombardi was the right GM at the right time. Now, a lot of things have had to go the Kings way for them to have gotten to this point. Lombardi's job may have been in trouble for a while there too.

I think a guy like Lombardi loves the challenge of the cap. He's a manager. He was doing the moneyball-ish thing in SJ as well. With the playing field more level, Lombardi has ended up right there at or near the top in terms of managing the cap.

 

[The Tikkanen]

Taylor was probably hired as the GM just because of his name. Came in soon after Gretzky got traded, the Kings were horrible from top to bottom, they weren't spending a ton of money, etc. I'm not saying Taylor was a great GM, but he had a few moments working in a different environment than what the NHL is today.

Taylor was the Kings GM 3 years after he retired. He was a player. Lombardi was more of an executive. He slowly went through the process before he ever got a GM job.



Just look at how many older Europeans the Kings drafted during Taylor's time. Visnovsky, Lilja, Kaberle, Pirnes, Bednar, Huet. That's because the Kings didn't have anything from the early 90's drafts, and when they started to build something in the farm system in the late 90's, whatever it was, they ended up trading it for Palffy. In the early 00's, the Kings were a playoff team, weren't a huge free agent player, and got some cheap veteran European talent, hoping it would work.

Two different worlds. Cap vs. no cap. Lombardi is management, Taylor is a player. Lombardi runs an organization from the ground up, Taylor was thrown into an almost impossible situation, for him or the Kings. I'm guessing if Lombardi got the Kings job in 1997, the Kings are probably about what the Sharks were back then. The Kings ended up sort of like that with Taylor anyway.

The cap allows a GM to actually be a GM, not just a guy handing out huge checks. Lombardi was the right GM at the right time. Now, a lot of things have had to go the Kings way for them to have gotten to this point. Lombardi's job may have been in trouble for a while there too.

I think a guy like Lombardi loves the challenge of the cap. He's a manager. He was doing the moneyball-ish thing in SJ as well. With the playing field more level, Lombardi has ended up right there at or near the top in terms of managing the cap.

If Taylor was better than the results were based on outside circumstances he would have gotten another opportunity by now.

 

[Captain Mittens*]

Taylor was probably hired as the GM just because of his name. Came in soon after Gretzky got traded, the Kings were horrible from top to bottom, they weren't spending a ton of money, etc. I'm not saying Taylor was a great GM, but he had a few moments working in a different environment than what the NHL is today.

Taylor was the Kings GM 3 years after he retired. He was a player. Lombardi was more of an executive. He slowly went through the process before he ever got a GM job.



Just look at how many older Europeans the Kings drafted during Taylor's time. Visnovsky, Lilja, Kaberle, Pirnes, Bednar, Huet. That's because the Kings didn't have anything from the early 90's drafts, and when they started to build something in the farm system in the late 90's, whatever it was, they ended up trading it for Palffy. In the early 00's, the Kings were a playoff team, weren't a huge free agent player, and got some cheap veteran European talent, hoping it would work.

Two different worlds. Cap vs. no cap. Lombardi is management, Taylor is a player. Lombardi runs an organization from the ground up, Taylor was thrown into an almost impossible situation, for him or the Kings. I'm guessing if Lombardi got the Kings job in 1997, the Kings are probably about what the Sharks were back then. The Kings ended up sort of like that with Taylor anyway.

The cap allows a GM to actually be a GM, not just a guy handing out huge checks. Lombardi was the right GM at the right time. Now, a lot of things have had to go the Kings way for them to have gotten to this point. Lombardi's job may have been in trouble for a while there too.

Taylor was hired because he was McMaster's Asst GM and he convinced Lieweekly that he could do the job

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The issue with Taylor was that he didn't have the cajones to pull off a Williams, Carter or Gaborik like acquisition at the trade deadline.

Observe the types of players he went after. His last deadline move was trading two former 1st rounders in Grebeshkov and Tambellini for a pure rental in Mark Parrish and Brent Sopel, a mid-bottom pairing dman. So he lost two long-term assets that could've been dangled for a better deal in a desperation move that did not work out.

Prior to that he went after guys on the decline in adding pieces like Cliff Ronning and Anson Carter, two other short term additions who did not workout at all.

Now don't get me wrong, he did get a great return when he traded Rob Blake and landed a forward like Deadmarsh that the team badly needed, but they also blew those two 1st round picks that were acquired in the trade. He added players like Luc, Stumpel, Palffy, Smolinski, Deadmarsh and Allison, but sadly, 4 of those 6 players would all miss significant amounts of games due to long-term injuries. So you could say that Taylor had a lot of bad luck in addition to limited resources, some of which may have been his doing or strongly influenced by outside factors (cough, Leiweke and Gilmore). Oh yeah, they did add Martin Straka as well who guess what, was another injury prone forward who didn't last in LA. Oh yeah Valeri Bure too. So you get the running theme here.

The Kings were an antiquated organization and it took a few years under Lombardi to start seeing some significant changes. I don't think it was until 2009 that we saw things take shape and started seeing more and more assets being built up to either be a part of this team's core or be used to acquire significant parts. That's why the team doesn't miss a beat now when they add a new comer like Regehr or Gaborik and they fit right in (well, Regehr took a while but you get the point).

 

[johnjm22]

If Taylor was better than the results were based on outside circumstances he would have gotten another opportunity by now.

Not necessarily.

Lombardi is considered one of the best GM's in the NHL, but he came very close to failing in LA. If it wasn't for Sutter, I think Dean would be out of a GM job right now, and I don't think he'd be getting another chance at it.

It's hard to evaluate a GM considering there's so many circumstantial, and uncontrollable variables that ultimately effect on ice results. IMO, the best GM's are the ones that know how to surround themselves with quality people.

 

[tigermask48]

The issue with Taylor was that he didn't have the cajones to pull off a Williams, Carter or Gaborik like acquisition at the trade deadline.

Observe the types of players he went after. His last deadline move was trading two former 1st rounders in Grebeshkov and Tambellini for a pure rental in Mark Parrish and Brent Sopel, a mid-bottom pairing dman. So he lost two long-term assets that could've been dangled for a better deal in a desperation move that did not work out.

Prior to that he went after guys on the decline in adding pieces like Cliff Ronning and Anson Carter, two other short term additions who did not workout at all.

Now don't get me wrong, he did get a great return when he traded Rob Blake and landed a forward like Deadmarsh that the team badly needed, but they also blew those two 1st round picks that were acquired in the trade. He added players like Luc, Stumpel, Palffy, Smolinski, Deadmarsh and Allison, but sadly, 4 of those 6 players would all miss significant amounts of games due to long-term injuries. So you could say that Taylor had a lot of bad luck in addition to limited resources, some of which may have been his doing or strongly influenced by outside factors (cough, Leiweke and Gilmore). Oh yeah, they did add Martin Straka as well who guess what, was another injury prone forward who didn't last in LA. Oh yeah Valeri Bure too. So you get the running theme here.

The Kings were an antiquated organization and it took a few years under Lombardi to start seeing some significant changes. I don't think it was until 2009 that we saw things take shape and started seeing more and more assets being built up to either be a part of this team's core or be used to acquire significant parts. That's why the team doesn't miss a beat now when they add a new comer like Regehr or Gaborik and they fit right in (well, Regehr took a while but you get the point).

Really good post. I will say that one thing that always confused me about deals Taylor made was that so often the player seemed to be a square peg for a round hole. That in my eyes led to some of the injuries to guys. They just didn't fit the system the Kings were employing at that time. Heck I'm not even sure what the Kings were seemingly building towards. The Kings needed a goalie and Taylor goes out and gets Cechmanek who almost everyone knew was putting up the numbers he did due to the team in front of him. Like you said the Kings have gotten to a point now where almost anyone they bring in fits in somewhere. Back then it was very rare for a player to come in and not look completely out of place for a bit.

Also agree with Taylor having seemingly not understanding why you hang on to assets with an eye to the future. Look what happened with Huet. He looks decent splitting time with Cechmanek and then gets flipped for the less proven Garon. It's a lateral move at the very best. Huet then goes on a nice little run with Montreal and Washington, and LA continues to have goaltending issues.

 

[Herby]

The Garon-Labarbera disaster in 2006 was certainly the final nail in the coffin, the Kings bring in Demitra, Roenick and Conroy to go along wth young up and comers like Frolov, Cammalleri, Gleason and Brown and then that is what you get as the goaltenders, a couple of fringe AHL/NHL guys.

That 2005-2006 team would have been a middle of the road playoff team with average goaltending, DT completely botched the handing of the goaltenders in that season and was gone afterwards, never getting a chance to see the greatest player the franchise had ever drafted up to that point in Kopi play a game for a DT managed team.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The Garon-Labarbera disaster in 2006 was certainly the final nail in the coffin, the Kings bring in Demitra, Roenick and Conroy to go along wth young up and comers like Frolov, Cammalleri, Gleason and Brown and then that is what you get as the goaltenders, a couple of fringe AHL/NHL guys.

That 2005-2006 team would have been a middle of the road playoff team with average goaltending, DT completely botched the handing of the goaltenders in that season and was gone afterwards, never getting a chance to see the greatest player the franchise had ever drafted up to that point in Kopi play a game for a DT managed team.

In addition to that, look at how terrible the Kings defense became from the start of the 2000-01 season to the start of the 2003-04 season.

They went from:
Norstrom-Blake
Schneider-Boucher
Modry-Visnovsky
Karalahti

To this:
Modry-Visnovsky
Norstrom-Corvo
Gleason-Miller
Holland

The best goalie Taylor was able to bring in was Felix Potvin, and he only lasted for parts of 3 seasons. Then there's this list: Fiset, Storr, Chabot, Bach, Legace, Passmore, Cechmanek, Huet, Hnilicka, Garon, LaBarbera, Scott, Hauser, Chouinard, etc. Those are all names we saw dress in net for the Kings during the Taylor era. I guess they didn't really put an emphasis on scouting goaltenders. I swear the Kings were convinced that Garon would be a solid starter based on his performance against the Kings where Garon stood on his head.

 

[Herby]

I swear the Kings were convinced that Garon would be a solid starter based on his performance against the Kings where Garon stood on his head.

I remember that game.

I think that game was also the reason that Garon had so many fans on this board, it certainly couldn't have been his play with the Kings.

In all my years of watching hockey, I don't know if I have ever seen a more mentally weak goalie than Garon. He definitely had talent, and if the bounces went his way he could throw a 42 save shutout. But all it took was one goal, even if it was something that wasn't his fault, like a deflection off a skate, once that puck went in you know more goals were coming.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

There was one thing Garon was good at, shutouts. Other than that, he was a decent backup goalie forced to be a #1 starter in LA. Lombardi quickly realized that, though sadly he was somehow convinced Cloutier was an upgrade. I rank Cloutier up there with Fuhr as one of the worst goalies to ever play for the Kings.

 

[rajuabju]

In addition to that, look at how terrible the Kings defense became from the start of the 2000-01 season to the start of the 2003-04 season.

They went from:
Norstrom-Blake
Schneider-Boucher
Modry-Visnovsky
Karalahti

To this:
Modry-Visnovsky
Norstrom-Corvo
Gleason-Miller
Holland

The best goalie Taylor was able to bring in was Felix Potvin, and he only lasted for parts of 3 seasons. Then there's this list: Fiset, Storr, Chabot, Bach, Legace, Passmore, Cechmanek, Huet, Hnilicka, Garon, LaBarbera, Scott, Hauser, Chouinard, etc. Those are all names we saw dress in net for the Kings during the Taylor era. I guess they didn't really put an emphasis on scouting goaltenders. I swear the Kings were convinced that Garon would be a solid starter based on his performance against the Kings where Garon stood on his head.

You've done a great disservice to FUKUfujifilm and In Brust We Trust.

 

[jfont]

I swear the Kings were convinced that Garon would be a solid starter based on his performance against the Kings where Garon stood on his head.

I kind of think that was why they traded for Passmore as well...

 

[tigermask48]

The best goalie Taylor was able to bring in was Felix Potvin, and he only lasted for parts of 3 seasons. Then there's this list: Fiset, Storr, Chabot, Bach, Legace, Passmore, Cechmanek, Huet, Hnilicka, Garon, LaBarbera, Scott, Hauser, Chouinard, etc. Those are all names we saw dress in net for the Kings during the Taylor era. I guess they didn't really put an emphasis on scouting goaltenders. I swear the Kings were convinced that Garon would be a solid starter based on his performance against the Kings where Garon stood on his head.

There are some GMs that just can't judge certain positions and I think DT had major issues with goaltenders. Had no clue how to develop one, no clue how to gauge whether they could be a starter or not, no clue what to look for in one he would draft. Nothing. Some GMs just struggle with parts and that was clearly DT's weakness. Just a mess when it came to goaltenders. Look at the goalies that were here when DL took over. DL basically had to start from scratch and develop Zatkoff, and Quick from the ECHL up. Taylor, Munce, and Zaba did the best they could and you could argue that everyone of them showed marked improvement in their development once DL took over. The goalies were just a mess at every level and they had to play in some terrible situations. Compare that to the pipeline now and the difference is massive.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Look at the number of NHL goalies that have come up through the pipeline under Lombardi's watch:

Jonathan Quick, Jonathan Bernier, Jeff Zatkoff, and Martin Jones. Between 1997 to 2005, the Kings weren't able to bring up any goalies through the system that would make an impact.

That is outright ridiculous.

 

[johnjm22]

Look at the number of NHL goalies that have come up through the pipeline under Lombardi's watch:

Jonathan Quick, Jonathan Bernier, Jeff Zatkoff, and Martin Jones. Between 1997 to 2005, the Kings weren't able to bring up any goalies through the system that would make an impact.

That is outright ridiculous.

The difference now is that we actually have team defense. You can't develop goaltenders without it.

Throughout out most of the 90's and early 2000's the Kings defense was rubbish, and I believe that's the main reason we could never solidify the goaltending.

Huet, Legace, and even Dafoe went on to be serviceable NHL goaltenders after they left LA.

 

[tigermask48]

The difference now is that we actually have team defense. You can't develop goaltenders without it.

Throughout out most of the 90's and early 2000's the Kings defense was rubbish, and I believe that's the main reason we could never solidify the goaltending.

Huet, Legace, and even Dafoe went on to be serviceable NHL goaltenders after they left LA.

Yeah but it's a bit of both. The Kings D wasn't that awful that whole time period. A lot of it was giving up on guys too early, buying into hype on guys that hadn't proven anything. LA's D wasn't that much worse than Boston's when Dafoe was in both places. Legace took another year in the minors before he became a serviceable backup for one of the top teams in the league. The Kings flat out gave up on Huet right as he turned the corner into a decent 1A/B guy for Garon. Just far too many would've, should've, could'ves to be anything other than terrible development. Yeah it's partly system but it's mostly bad development and horrible management of goalies.

 

[Legionnaire]

The difference now is that we actually have team defense. You can't develop goaltenders without it.

Throughout out most of the 90's and early 2000's the Kings defense was rubbish, and I believe that's the main reason we could never solidify the goaltending.

Huet, Legace, and even Dafoe went on to be serviceable NHL goaltenders after they left LA.

Actually, we have Manchester to where we can actually develop our OWN players instead of having to split time with some other team or have them scattered all over or in the IHL. Thank you PA, TL, and DT.

I think people really underestimate what a difference that has made in terms of the development of players and a "team" concept. From the top down all the way to the Reign. It has made a huge difference.