I can't disagree more with this post. Mike Milbury, a former player and GM, made knowledgeable in-depth comments about Kopitar.
Mike Milbury's credentials as an ex-player/GM so he has a knowledge base so I'm not totally discrediting what he has to say, but so what?
Did Mike Milbury say *anything* that hasn't already been said about Kopitar before? Was there something new and insightful that he offered up? Or did he basically just re-wrap and re-present something old as something new?
He isn't some hack east-coast writer that is in his bed at 10:30 p.m. (EST) with his hot chocolate and 1994 rerun of the Rangers' Cup win on the telly.
I didn't say he was, but do you honestly think he's up at 1:00 A.M. EST watching West Coast games until their conclusion to keep updated on how those teams are doing? If not then where do you suppose he might be getting his information from -- game summaries, highlights, media articles, blog write-ups by other people?
Any halfway intelligent person on this board could do the same if they were to go and collect information on another team. I'm sure they could put together some informative opinions on said team if they tried, but without going the extra step there will probably be a lack of depth there in what they present.
That is what I'm saying is the case here.
It takes some intimacy and knowledge about a team or player to be able to poke holes in them critically while addressing a national audience like Milbury is doing for NBCSN. Because most people are not going to expose themselves to criticism unless they can back it up, especially when it's easier to bring up positives.
Did you see Milbury ripping holes into Alex Ovechkin though? He can do so with confidence because he knows the player as an East Coast guy and has watched the him play on numerous enough occasions to where he can defend his claims if necessary.
Milbury talked about it from the perspective of a player and what it would be like having a teammate like Ovechkin. As well from that of the G.M. if he had a player like that on his team, which were all interesting and a breath of fresh air compared to the usual Great 8 slobber fests.
That is why Milbury would earn far more points from me if he actually pulled on his wealth of experience and said something about Kopitar that goes one level deeper than most everybody else. Not to just rip him, but mention what he's doing and what he's not. Talk about things Kopitar could do better or an element to his game that could be added to allow him to take a step up into another echelon of player.
That to me would be flexing the power of his resume and credentials to say something that's not a regurgitation of past observations.
He's not incapable of being intelligently critical, but he's not doing it with a guy like Kopitar. The question would be why, but I think the answer is that it's as far as he's willing to dig into the subject, to be honest.
Dave Strader sees the Kings all the time. So does Randy Hahn. Both of these guys know exactly what is going on with the Kings, and detail it on their broadcasts.
Yet it's all positive. Yeah, Randy Hahn might be holding his nose while giving compliments to the Kings, but he is a professional. All of them are, and they all know what is going on with this team.
I thought this was a given, actually.
What exactly is all the time? Is that quantifiable to a number that's equivalent to or surpassing how often the average Kings fan watches the team?
The point is that while they are undoubtedly professionals involved in the game of hockey they are *not* people that follow the Kings exclusively so I take what they have to say with a grain of salt.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but to me, it sounds like you're saying that people involved in the hockey world know more than the average fan so what they're saying might be more valid than what we might have to say, which is negative.
If that's wrong then I apologize, but that's the feel I'm getting here so correct me if you feel appropriate.
But if that is the case then I have to ask, when Bruce Garrioch of the Ottawa Sun mentioned a win-win-win three-way trade scenario did you scoff or not?
To Ottawa: Nikolai Khabibulin, Brent Seabrook OR Cam Barker
To LA: Martin Gerber, Andrej Meszaros
To Chicago: Anze Kopitar
Garrioch has been covering hockey since 1992-1993 so he has a wealth of experience as well as accolades to point to as someone that knows what they're talking about, but does that mean I should take what he has to heart because he's a professional and I'm not?
