Toggle sidebar

NHL Orgs you would NOT swap out with LAK org

  • 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
Utah has actually kept their prospects, still has draft picks up the wazoo and has a ton of cap space. I’d swap rosters with them in a heartbeat.

The only thing the current Kings have over them is having a logo and colors, and thanks to Luc that’s barely an advantage as is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VILARGOD, Schrute farms, tbrown33 and 3 others
BaileyFan said:
Utah has actually kept their prospects, still has draft picks up the wazoo and has a ton of cap space. I’d swap rosters with them in a heartbeat.

The only thing the current Kings have over them is having a logo and colors, and thanks to Luc that’s barely an advantage as is.
Click to expand...
IWe can keep the logo.. just front office, roster and pipeline.. basically my point is, the Kings org is probably 28th out of 32 in terms of ability to get back to the cup... thats how bad it is. We can only come up with 3 or 4 teams we wouldnt swap with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raccoon Jesus and BaileyFan
I mean at worse we will be making a lateral move if we switch with Buffalo. I can’t think of a franchise that I feel worse about than the Kings. Not even the Senators since they’re poor and they suck. Kings are bloated as f*** and suck.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: AbsentMojo
Raccoon Jesus said:
CBJ
Calgary
Ottawa
Buffalo
Montreal
Vancouver
Are absolutely nots
----
Nashville
St Louis
are lateral, I just absolutely hate blackholing
Click to expand...
To me, blackhole are in the worst shape... so making the 1st round and faliing to proceed to me is probably the definition of it... but its still you have assess, the front office, the roster, and the pipeline... its pretty complicated and I just did it on my gut... Buffalo and Vancouver seem much better off than the Kings.. whats your rationale for those 2?
 
AbsentMojo said:
To me, blackhole are in the worst shape... so making the 1st round and faliing to proceed to me is probably the definition of it... but its still you have assess, the front office, the roster, and the pipeline... its pretty complicated and I just did it on my gut... Buffalo and Vancouver seem much better off than the Kings.. whats your rationale for those 2?
Click to expand...

You're probably right on Buffalo. They've got a solid pipeline...but everything else is currently a mess, but it's probably fixable with better leadership

What does Vancouver have that the Kings don't? They've got much better coaching, but otherwise theyr'e also an aging team that's never healthy, never performing to capabilities, and had everything go right this year and still didn't do much, with no real help on the way and key players likely departing. Edit: i guess for van you can say they have a 1c-1d-1g and can just build around that. But I don't find them to be in a much better spot and thye've typically had middling ownership and management. Not sure I'd 'want' to have that any more than the Kings, they're no closer to a championship OR a rebuild imo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AbsentMojo
Raccoon Jesus said:
You're probably right on Buffalo. They've got a solid pipeline...but everything else is currently a mess, but it's probably fixable with better leadership

What does Vancouver have that the Kings don't? They've got much better coaching, but otherwise theyr'e also an aging team that's never healthy, never performing to capabilities, and had everything go right this year and still didn't do much, with no real help on the way and key players likely departing. Edit: i guess for van you can say they have a 1c-1d-1g and can just build around that. But I don't find them to be in a much better spot and thye've typically had middling ownership and management. Not sure I'd 'want' to have that any more than the Kings, they're no closer to a championship OR a rebuild imo.
Click to expand...
Got it re Van. Well I do think they seem better on paper with the having the middle core be top 10 in the league.. and JT Miller and a few other pieces seem good. But since Petter didnt perform and Demko was injured takes some of that lustre away. I dont know squat about the GM Allvin.. but he cant be worse than Blake.. nor could their president.. so therefore, they get the nod over LAK in my book.. but its a close call.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raccoon Jesus
For sure I wouldn't want to be Calgary.

I think Utah and Buffalo are finally in somewhat enviable positions.

If you think about it, Edmonton might be in a pretty terrible spot. Drai a UFA after next season, McDavid only two more years.

Pittsburgh is probably driving on a bridge to nowhere.

Boston also looks to have a pretty shitty future. No prospects. No picks. Mediocre team.

Even though Ottawa has some excellent young players, I would never want to be them. What a dull franchise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AbsentMojo
AbsentMojo said:
Taking into account front office, roster, and pipeline - what NHL orgs would you not swap with the Kings?

Columbus
Calgary
NYI

I think AZ move to Utah takes off my list
Click to expand...

The Islanders new ownership had a goal in mind when they hired Lou. They wanted a winning team for the new arena they were building. He took over a franchise that had just missed the playoffs the previous two seasons and had lost their franchise center in Tavares to free agency. They went on to win 6 playoff rounds and only missed the playoffs once since he took over. For comparison, Bluc have won 0 playoff rounds and missed the playoffs 3 times. I'm not sure why you would think that a franchise that has recently made the conference finals is below us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AbsentMojo
At this exact moment I’d probably list

Absolutely not
Montreal
Calgary
Buffalo
Philadelphia
Columbus
Washington
Ottawa

I feel lateral moves
Minnesota
Pittsburgh
Detroit
St Louis
New York Islanders

And I’m torn on New Jersey. They should be better but they just can’t seem to get there so I can’t debate if it’s a lateral move or an absolutely not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AbsentMojo
aren’t the Kings one of the only three teams in the last decade to win a series? How is anyone’s list longer than 2? Lol
 
AbsentMojo said:
Got it re Van. Well I do think they seem better on paper with the having the middle core be top 10 in the league.. and JT Miller and a few other pieces seem good. But since Petter didnt perform and Demko was injured takes some of that lustre away. I dont know squat about the GM Allvin.. but he cant be worse than Blake.. nor could their president.. so therefore, they get the nod over LAK in my book.. but its a close call.
Click to expand...

I do appreciate Allvin, yeah. It's narrow but clear, can agree with that.

I guess in the end the point is the Kings are a bottom quarter franchise with the attitude that they're a top quarter franchise because they're profitable.

Sol said:
aren’t the Kings one of the only three teams in the last decade to win a series? How is anyone’s list longer than 2? Lol
Click to expand...

Mostly because there are teams that are doing the same terrible things we're doing for much longer and for multiple front offices

I mean sure some of those other guys have won a round but if we would have beat the OIlers and lost to the Canucks would you say we're a top franchise? That's about the 'success' the other teams have had outside of some lightning strikes (MTL, for example, no one in the world believed they'd do that again).
 
  • Like
Reactions: AbsentMojo
pittsburgh is looking pretty bad
calgary ouch
lumbus is hurtin

its surprizing to me that people dont realize how much of a mess we truly are. but i guess the guys signing the checks for these boys dont give a f*** so why should i ??? once again it all comes down to expectations and if yours are to be entertained by mediocrity and a team that wont stick up physically for one another then have at it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AbsentMojo
chris kontos said:
pittsburgh is looking pretty bad
calgary ouch
lumbus is hurtin

its surprizing to me that people dont realize how much of a mess we truly are. but i guess the guys signing the checks for these boys dont give a f*** so why should i ??? once again it all comes down to expectations and if yours are to be entertained by mediocrity and a team that wont stick up physically for one another then have at it.
Click to expand...

I dunno. I just think it's possible to hammer Blake while looking around the league. I could be convinced of some of them, but have they really given us the benefit of the doubt? For example, I love Fantilli--but otherwise CBJ seems content to keep running it back without changing much. Until their management shows different, they're just a reskinned Kings. Calgary, ugh, they're basically a carbon copy down to having a guy from Blake's era in Conroy and an anchor in Huberdeau, would you really rather be Calgary? Ottawa and Buffalo have some better 'pieces' but their front offices are arguably a worse shitshow than ours until proven otherwise. So I guess from that standpoint--I COULD be convinced that the only franchises worse off are Calgary, Pittsburgh, but the others are so close it's not a big deal to me, even down to the delusional management. There are things we do objectively better--like drafting--and objectively worse--like coaching and development--that ends up a wash.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chris kontos
I just have issues with management. It's an imperfect roster with holes in the pipeline, but I wouldn't want to outright switch it all out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kingsboy11
Raccoon Jesus said:
I dunno. I just think it's possible to hammer Blake while looking around the league. I could be convinced of some of them, but have they really given us the benefit of the doubt? For example, I love Fantilli--but otherwise CBJ seems content to keep running it back without changing much. Until their management shows different, they're just a reskinned Kings. Calgary, ugh, they're basically a carbon copy down to having a guy from Blake's era in Conroy and an anchor in Huberdeau, would you really rather be Calgary? Ottawa and Buffalo have some better 'pieces' but their front offices are arguably a worse shitshow than ours until proven otherwise. So I guess from that standpoint--I COULD be convinced that the only franchises worse off are Calgary, Pittsburgh, but the others are so close it's not a big deal to me, even down to the delusional management. There are things we do objectively better--like drafting--and objectively worse--like coaching and development--that ends up a wash.
Click to expand...
I wouldnt mind buffalo- they have better goaltending and soon they have to have better results. How about we keep aeg and buffalo's owner stays. I make that deal.
Somebody also said detroit was worse off than us but i think thats nuts- id trade montebello and our team for detroit's operation right now.
I also think ottowa on track to success but they need to get rid of that goaltender. Then id trade. New owner guy is probaly motivated to win.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raccoon Jesus and AbsentMojo
King'sPawn said:
I just have issues with management. It's an imperfect roster with holes in the pipeline, but I wouldn't want to outright switch it all out.
Click to expand...
You get to keep the logo/history, just swap out the front office, roster and pipeline... so that should take some of the emotion out of it... you get to prove to yourself how moribund the franchise is
 
Docgonzo said:
At this exact moment I’d probably list

Absolutely not
Montreal
Calgary
Buffalo
Philadelphia
Columbus
Washington
Ottawa

I feel lateral moves
Minnesota
Pittsburgh
Detroit
St Louis
New York Islanders

And I’m torn on New Jersey. They should be better but they just can’t seem to get there so I can’t debate if it’s a lateral move or an absolutely not.
Click to expand...
Well thought out.. Minne with Suter and Parise off the books after 24/25 season looks OK to me. Jersey with a goalie could be OK. Agree re Washington - I shouldve put them on the list.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Docgonzo
AbsentMojo said:
You get to keep the logo/history, just swap out the front office, roster and pipeline... so that should take some of the emotion out of it... you get to prove to yourself how moribund the franchise is
Click to expand...
I understood the assignment.

I just wouldn't want to do a 1:1 change with any organization. I would simply want new management to make the appropriate changes with what LA currently has.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AbsentMojo and kingsboy11
King'sPawn said:
I understood the assignment.

I just wouldn't want to do a 1:1 change with any organization. I would simply want new management to make the appropriate changes with what LA currently has.
Click to expand...
I for one would take the Ducks GM, pipe and roster.. Verbeek seems sharp with a vision. Lots of good young players and a top 3 pick this season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chris kontos
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom