The Sharks could have been where the Kings are....

[northernKing]

I think in the most visible roles of a GM, Taylor was an above average GM. This included drafting, having the cajones to pull off big trades, etc. But there is a lot of stuff that Lombardi brought to the Kings organization which, when he described them, made Taylor's staff look like they were still in the stone age. The two biggest ones were player development and using bridge players to build a culture/identity for the team.

What Lombardi didn't have in San Jose was an owner that was willing to give him a large enough leash and budget to implement his grand plan to build a perennial winner. A large part of that was because the version of the plan he is using in LA is an evolution of the plan he had in San Jose. It may never have worked anyways. So the way his career played out there was pretty much how it was going to be.

So yeah, the Sharks COULD have been where the Kings are, but only if the owner was stupid enough to give a GM that has failed not only a mulligan, but more leeway than before, and on top of that, after that GM spent some time doing professional scouting reflecting on how/why he failed the first time. That was never going to happen.

But I don't care. I've lived in the SFBA for almost twenty years now, a decade of which I had to endure the Sharks pretty much having their way with the Kings. I had a yearly bet with a buddy on who would have a better head-to-head record and who would get further in the playoffs every year during that stretch. I'm not even mad that we stopped doing it last year, because I have a pretty good idea of what the alternative universe would look like.

If Taylor stayed another two years, there would have been no Terry Murray. There would have been no Scott Thornton. Avery and Frolov might have stuck around for a couple more seasons. No Greene. No Stoll. We might have signed Gomez, or Richards, or given Kovalchuk the huge contract Lombardi didn't give him. Brown probably wouldn't be captain. Scuderi never comes to LA. Kopitar would probably have ended up being an awesome fantasy player, maybe breaks a point-per-game, but never becomes that complete championship linchpin player. Quick may never have even gotten a shot, and might have been released before breaking out of the ECHL. Bernier wouldn't have even been drafted, and even if he had been, he would have been rushed up and would now be in the same boat as Steve Mason. Manchester would have another revolving door of Lehouxs, Kankos, Pushkarevs, and other could-have-beens that were great raw material at draft time but were not properly developed. More limbo that guys that were here 10 years ago probably can but don't want to remember. Yeeks.

Don't feel bad, Sharks fans. Lombardi was never going to work out for you. But I'm sure glad he was available when the Kings fired Taylor.

Lots of maybes in that thinking. What I think we can agree on is that LA ownership may have opened the wallet more after bringing Lombardi on board. We don't know if Taylor would have gone after those UFAs but we do know that Lombardi did

 

[kingsfan]

Taylor drafted
97-jokinen and Corvo
99- kaberle and parros
00- visnovsky frolov Lilja
01- steckel and cammalleri
02- Rome
03- brown and Boyle
05- kopitar and quick

That's 11 current nhlers and a couple more that played over 500 games
Taylor other strength is quickly seeing which prospects weren't gonna pan out andoving them for pieces to fill out the lineup. His traded prospects usually faded into prospect oblivion. Unlike guys like Moulson, Purcell, loktionov and Boyle

Typically, a team considers producing two NHLers per draft as breaking even. So 14 in 7 years is average. Considering you left 2004 and 1998 off there, you can make it 14 in 9 drafts. That's actually poor results.

Disagree. As I've stated in other threads Kopitar is a unique individual and has barely needed any development. Most of it came before landing in LA. Taylor was more astute in free agent signings and as a Kings fan I thank the hockey gods we didn't land Brad Richards, Drury or Gomez. All players pursued by Lombardi. Lombardi and his staff have drafted well but have also rushed players like Clifford IMO. He should have been left in junior to develop his offensive game and maybe another year in the AHL after that. Instead he was fighting and getting concussed in the NHL. I do agree Brown was rushed too and the lockout served him and many other youngsters well.

Lombardi has built the farm system and organization very well I just don't think he has gotten full value out of player moves like trading away Cammalleri, Purcell, Boyle and others. Taylor moved prospects like Aulin, Anshankov and Tambelini for proven players unfortunately they were usually hurt or injured. Injuries really screwed over with Taylor's success. The LAPD line would have had LA in the playoffs much more often

Even if I give you Kopitar (I can see your point) then you can hand Kopitar and maybe Brown to DT. The rest have DL's marks all over them. Quick was drafted by DT but I'd honestly like to know if he ever even met DT or Andy Murray. Does anyone know if he ever even attended a rookie camp or a training camp before DT was fired?

The rest of the team is Lombardi's, so people giving DT anything more than footnote credit for the 2012 Stanley Cup need to chake their heads.

As for Gomez, Richards, etc. why do you think we didn't get them? Because we didn't pay them those ridiculous contracts. We courted them, so did a dozen teams, but DL refused to sell out teh future for a big name. There is a reason why the only NHL team without one player with a NMC/NTC is LA. DL is a cap guru.

I agree DL didn't get full value on trades, but those examples you gave for DT aren't very applicable. Aulin and Tambs were dealt for UFA's to be (yes, we also got Sopel in the Tambs deal, but Parrish was the target and we also included Grebeshkov in that deal). The Anashankov deal was a good one, though Straka was largely a flop here.

Also, i are on the injuries, but on te flip side, wht did DT do to fix that issue? We had the most man games lost of any NHLteam three straight years and each year it was at or almost at NHL all-time recod levels. Did DT rplace the training staff, hire additional, help doanything to change things? Not that I recall.

 

[kingsfan]

And it was Lombardi who botched the 2003 draft for San Jose.

How? And how is Michalek, Bernier, Pavelski and Carle considered a botched draft? In terms of numbers of legit NHL players from one draft, that may have been the best draft in Sharks history.

 

[JoeThorntonsRooster]

How? And how is Michalek, Bernier, Pavelski and Carle considered a botched draft? In terms of numbers of legit NHL players from one draft, that may have been the best draft in Sharks history.

Compared to what he could have had? Pavelski is the only top tier talent (and he's borderline) in that draft, while Michalek and Carle are second line/pair players, and Bernier is a 4th liner. Most people wanted us to pick Parise instead. We could have done much, much, much better that year.

Not to say that Wilson hasn't made bad moves in the past (Setoguchi over Kopitar because Kopitar is from Slovenia ) but I like what Wilson has done more than I liked Lombardi. Keep in mind the Sharks haven't missed the playoffs since 2003, unlike the Kings, which is a big reason they weren't able to get somebody like Doughty on a great contract.

And there's no reason the Sharks can't win the Cup this year, the series is 2-1.

 

[kingsfan]

Compared to what he could have had? Pavelski is the only top tier talent (and he's borderline) in that draft, while Michalek and Carle are second line/pair players, and Bernier is a 4th liner. Most people wanted us to pick Parise instead. We could have done much, much, much better that year.

Not to say that Wilson hasn't made bad moves in the past (Setoguchi over Kopitar because Kopitar is from Slovenia ) but I like what Wilson has done more than I liked Lombardi. Keep in mind the Sharks haven't missed the playoffs since 2003, unlike the Kings, which is a big reason they weren't able to get somebody like Doughty on a great contract.

And there's no reason the Sharks can't win the Cup this year, the series is 2-1.

Every team could have done better. We got Brian Boyle and Jeff Tambellini in the first round that year too. But we also got Dustin Brown.

If you're just going to look at a 'what we could have had' angle, you'll never be happy. As I said, volume wise that is arguably the best draft ever for the Sharks, it's anything but a screw up.

A screw up that year was the Rangers (Hugh Jessiman).

 

[northernKing]

Typically, a team considers producing two NHLers per draft as breaking even. So 14 in 7 years is average. Considering you left 2004 and 1998 off there, you can make it 14 in 9 drafts. That's actually poor results.



Even if I give you Kopitar (I can see your point) then you can hand Kopitar and maybe Brown to DT. The rest have DL's marks all over them. Quick was drafted by DT but I'd honestly like to know if he ever even met DT or Andy Murray. Does anyone know if he ever even attended a rookie camp or a training camp before DT was fired?

The rest of the team is Lombardi's, so people giving DT anything more than footnote credit for the 2012 Stanley Cup need to chake their heads.

As for Gomez, Richards, etc. why do you think we didn't get them? Because we didn't pay them those ridiculous contracts. We courted them, so did a dozen teams, but DL refused to sell out teh future for a big name. There is a reason why the only NHL team without one player with a NMC/NTC is LA. DL is a cap guru.

I agree DL didn't get full value on trades, but those examples you gave for DT aren't very applicable. Aulin and Tambs were dealt for UFA's to be (yes, we also got Sopel in the Tambs deal, but Parrish was the target and we also included Grebeshkov in that deal). The Anashankov deal was a good one, though Straka was largely a flop here.

Also, i are on the injuries, but on te flip side, wht did DT do to fix that issue? We had the most man games lost of any NHLteam three straight years and each year it was at or almost at NHL all-time recod levels. Did DT rplace the training staff, hire additional, help doanything to change things? Not that I recall.

1. Ken Holland once said getting two NHLers out of a draft is very good. I'll do some research and see how other teams/GMs have done or averaged

2. I give DL credit for Quick because without signing Cloutier we would never have been forced to bring quick along so quickly lol

3. We didn't land Gomez or Drury because despite offering more $ they wanted to go to NYR

4. How do you replace injuries to star players like Allison and Palffy?? Or replace a player like Deadmarsh? Some injuries can't be bandaid. Heck even Scott Barney had a very promising career railroaded by injuries

5. I do give DL a lot of credit for deals and adding depth. Just think Taylor provided a very good canvas and some top shelf paint for Lombardi to compose the masterpiece that is our KINGS!!!!

6. You make valid points. Agree to disagree I guess. Go Kings!

 

[northernKing]

Typically, a team considers producing two NHLers per draft as breaking even. So 14 in 7 years is average. Considering you left 2004 and 1998 off there, you can make it 14 in 9 drafts. That's actually poor results.



Even if I give you Kopitar (I can see your point) then you can hand Kopitar and maybe Brown to DT. The rest have DL's marks all over them. Quick was drafted by DT but I'd honestly like to know if he ever even met DT or Andy Murray. Does anyone know if he ever even attended a rookie camp or a training camp before DT was fired?

The rest of the team is Lombardi's, so people giving DT anything more than footnote credit for the 2012 Stanley Cup need to chake their heads.

As for Gomez, Richards, etc. why do you think we didn't get them? Because we didn't pay them those ridiculous contracts. We courted them, so did a dozen teams, but DL refused to sell out teh future for a big name. There is a reason why the only NHL team without one player with a NMC/NTC is LA. DL is a cap guru.

I agree DL didn't get full value on trades, but those examples you gave for DT aren't very applicable. Aulin and Tambs were dealt for UFA's to be (yes, we also got Sopel in the Tambs deal, but Parrish was the target and we also included Grebeshkov in that deal). The Anashankov deal was a good one, though Straka was largely a flop here.

Also, i are on the injuries, but on te flip side, wht did DT do to fix that issue? We had the most man games lost of any NHLteam three straight years and each year it was at or almost at NHL all-time recod levels. Did DT rplace the training staff, hire additional, help doanything to change things? Not that I recall.

From 1997-2005 Dave Taylor drafted 15 players that have or should play over 400 NHL games
Over that same span the following teams I randomly researched had
Carolina 8
Edmonton 10
Dallas 13
Detroit 15
Chicago 18
Vancouver 12
Washington 12
NJ 7 !?!?!?
NYR 10
Philadelphia 10

Funny notes I discovered while researching
- we have Philadelphia's first 3 picks in 2003 playing in LA (Carter,Richards and Fraser)
-Det drafted Hudler, Fleischmann, Filpulla and Ericsson all in 2002
- I'd give Chicago's 2004 draft a B grade lol (Barker, Bolland, Bickell and Brouwer)

 

[kingsfan]

1. Ken Holland once said getting two NHLers out of a draft is very good. I'll do some research and see how other teams/GMs have done or averaged

Link? And 2 is average. 2 might be good for Detroit considering they are usually drafting after most/all teams each year.

2. I give DL credit for Quick because without signing Cloutier we would never have been forced to bring quick along so quickly lol

I'd rather give him credit for not trading Quick away before he did something, like Taylor did with Huet.

3. We didn't land Gomez or Drury because despite offering more $ they wanted to go to NYR

Link?

4. How do you replace injuries to star players like Allison and Palffy?? Or replace a player like Deadmarsh? Some injuries can't be bandaid. Heck even Scott Barney had a very promising career railroaded by injuries

The same way you off-set a big slump by Penner or long-term injuries to guys like Mitchell and Greene. You get some depth and at least off-set those injuries as best you can. Pittsburgh lost the best player in the game for large chunks of three seasons and they had the depth to off-set. DL gets depth and we can roll four solid lines, the top three of which can score. DT was largely a one line team, some ok depth guys and sporadic gaoltending, largely because he couldn't develop players very well, and traded some (Huet as an example) before they were allowed to do much as a King.

5. I do give DL a lot of credit for deals and adding depth. Just think Taylor provided a very good canvas and some top shelf paint for Lombardi to compose the masterpiece that is our KINGS!!!! [/QOUTE]

What did Taylor provide? Quick, Brown and Kopitar? Sure, that is nice, no one is debating that. But I find it funny how much credit Taylor gets for bringing in three guys to the organization (and arguably doing nothing for any of their developments). DL built the right team around them, and had the guts to make the right coaching changes. DT held onto Andy Murray until the bitter end, even when it wasn't working.

6. You make valid points. Agree to disagree I guess. Go Kings!

Completely agree, and you make some valid points as well. I think we can agree on GKG though!

 

[northernKing]

Link? And 2 is average. 2 might be good for Detroit considering they are usually drafting after most/all teams each year.



I'd rather give him credit for not trading Quick away before he did something, like Taylor did with Huet.



Link?



The same way you off-set a big slump by Penner or long-term injuries to guys like Mitchell and Greene. You get some depth and at least off-set those injuries as best you can. Pittsburgh lost the best player in the game for large chunks of three seasons and they had the depth to off-set. DL gets depth and we can roll four solid lines, the top three of which can score. DT was largely a one line team, some ok depth guys and sporadic gaoltending, largely because he couldn't develop players very well, and traded some (Huet as an example) before they were allowed to do much as a King.

5. I do give DL a lot of credit for deals and adding depth. Just think Taylor provided a very good canvas and some top shelf paint for Lombardi to compose the masterpiece that is our KINGS!!!! [/QOUTE]

What did Taylor provide? Quick, Brown and Kopitar? Sure, that is nice, no one is debating that. But I find it funny how much credit Taylor gets for bringing in three guys to the organization (and arguably doing nothing for any of their developments). DL built the right team around them, and had the guts to make the right coaching changes. DT held onto Andy Murray until the bitter end, even when it wasn't working.



Completely agree, and you make some valid points as well. I think we can agree on GKG though!

Sorry don't have links but heard Holland on TSN a few years back make that comment and Bob Mckenzie had referred to it in the past too. The Drury/Gomez UFA think was also something I heard Bob Mckenzie mention on TSN. I've also seen it mentioned on HF boards but not sure if they had links.

I'll do a complete run down of all teams draft success between 1997-2005 but so far my numbers in my previous post show LA having more success than most teams. But I'll base it on all 30 teams.

As for development I agree DL has done a very good job but I think we also need to realize that some players just have different levels of drive/desire than others. Kopitar and Quick just seem like guys that would have been stars regardless. You can argue that quick may have been traded but I remember reading Al Murray say they believed they drafted two of the best goalies (Quick and Zatkoff)in the 2005 draft after Price

I'm just glad we didn't trade Kopitar, Brown and Quick to florida for Loungo. I had Canuck fans gloat about how their team beat out my team for his services lol!

 

[kingsfan]

The reported offer was Garon, Frolov and Brown for Luongo

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/archive/index.php/t-261622.html

 

[Sam]

The reported offer was Garon, Frolov and Brown for Luongo

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/archive/index.php/t-261622.html

No, that was awful reporting by TSN and a Florida newspaper. The LA Times reported that names being discussed in a potential Luongo trade were Frolov, Brown, and Luongo. TSN and a Florida newspaper, citing the LA Times, said the rumored trade was all 3 for Luongo.

 

[northernKing]

A local Vancouver radio station reported it was Kopitar and Quick involved. I specifically remember this because I was nervous of losing Kopitar in the deal. Mainly because new GMs are often more apt at moving out the picks prospects of the old regime (Boyle,Cammalleri,etc)

 

[northernKing]

Wow that link has Detroit mentioned with Datsyuk and Howard!

 

[The Tikkanen]

As much as I like Lombardi I think Dave Taylors best move for the franchise was drafting Kopitar. And I don't think Lombardi has topped it yet. Without Kopitar we'd be no where. Btw the sharks core is flawed do I don't think they'd get it done without major changes to the core.

Dave Taylor had a big part of our current team.

Agreed. Taylor laid a solid foundation and Lombardi has come in and after stumbling for a few years in free agency has had the Midas touch on his trades and moves for the most part. You also cannot discount what Quick has meant to this franchise turnaround. In a couple of years he has either taken over all time Kings records in net or will before he turns 30. He may be the record book by the time he's done and make the rest look like what they really were. Any way you look at it the Kings look like contenders for years to come and that's what we all wanted. It's nice to turn on Kings games and expect them to win.

 

[kingsfan]

No, that was awful reporting by TSN and a Florida newspaper. The LA Times reported that names being discussed in a potential Luongo trade were Frolov, Brown, and Luongo. TSN and a Florida newspaper, citing the LA Times, said the rumored trade was all 3 for Luongo.

Then show me a link that says otherwise. I distinctly recall Frolov being involved in the reported offer.

 

[Sam]

Then show me a link that says otherwise. I distinctly recall Frolov being involved in the reported offer.

The LA Times said that Frolov (along with Brown and Garon) were among the names being discussed in a potential Luongo trade. Lacking reading comprehension, TSN and a Florida newspaper reported that it was all 3 for Luongo while citing the LA Times.

Here is the original LA Times article.

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jun/21/sports/sp-kings21

The Kings are once again pursuing Florida Panthers goaltender Roberto Luongo, a league source said Tuesday.

The Kings are believed to be discussing a multi-player package, with forwards Alexander Frolov and Dustin Brown and goaltender Mathieu Garon among the names being discussed.

 

[kingsfan]

The LA Times said that Frolov (along with Brown and Garon) were among the names being discussed in a potential Luongo trade. Lacking reading comprehension, TSN and a Florida newspaper reported that it was all 3 for Luongo while citing the LA Times.

Here is the original LA Times article.

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jun/21/sports/sp-kings21

So what you're saying is that there's no report of the actual offer, just three names that were possibly discussed.

 

[Sam]

So what you're saying is that there's no report of the actual offer, just three names that were possibly discussed.

I'm saying there was shoddy reporting by TSN and the Florida newspaper.

Here's the thread on the Kings board.

There are a few posts detailing that here,

Exactly, and the Palm Beach Post and TSN are both citing the Times article, and doing so inaccurately. There's only a single source (the Times) here and it says that Frolov, Brown and Garon are among the names mentioned, nothing more, nothing less.

here,

I tried telling that to Florida fans....

and here.

I posted as much in the "Your Call" section of the TSN article...conveniently, after the mandatory review process, they chose not to admit my comments.

 

[yankeeking]

Agreed. Taylor laid a solid foundation and Lombardi has come in and after stumbling for a few years in free agency has had the Midas touch on his trades and moves for the most part. You also cannot discount what Quick has meant to this franchise turnaround. In a couple of years he has either taken over all time Kings records in net or will before he turns 30. He may be the record book by the time he's done and make the rest look like what they really were. Any way you look at it the Kings look like contenders for years to come and that's what we all wanted. It's nice to turn on Kings games and expect them to win.

my son and I talked about this on the way to the game last week , when he was a kid I would tell him we just needed to make the playoffs and then pray the goalie got and we could ride them to a cup, when we go now its just expected to be in the game ,always contending, and to come away when a WIN , yes a win not hoping something would break our way to the second round a win and then another win and then a ................. GREAT TIME TO BE A KINGS FAN ............GO KINGS GO

PS........what would have been if DT picks Pery and Weber witth those late 2 picks in the first round........now stop thinking about it and watch "MR. DESTINY" with Jim Belushi, any time you change something in the past it changes the timeline going forward and while it might have been better there is no guarantee we would win the freaking cup last summer, the past is the past and while all of us enjoyed the cup those of us that have been around from the JKC days ENJOYED IMMENSELY ,all the time and money over the years lead to tears and celebrating still to today and this is by far the deepest and best team we've had and they are still young enough for this to go on for years......GO KINGS GO

 

[kingsfan]

I'm saying there was shoddy reporting by TSN and the Florida newspaper.

Here's the thread on the Kings board.

There are a few posts detailing that here, here, and here.

So again, what you're saying is that there's no report of the actual offer, just three names that were possibly discussed.

 

[Herby]

wow some really old names I miss in that thread. I actually wanted to make the trade, happy the Kings didn't in hindsight, but no one had any idea how great Quick was going to be, and I was absolutely not ready to go another season with Garon, DL actually found maybe the only guy in the league who was a downgrade from Garon but it all worked out in the end because of that 20 year old kid playing at UMASS.

 

[northernKing]

wow some really old names I miss in that thread. I actually wanted to make the trade, happy the Kings didn't in hindsight, but no one had any idea how great Quick was going to be, and I was absolutely not ready to go another season with Garon, DL actually found maybe the only guy in the league who was a downgrade from Garon but it all worked out in the end because of that 20 year old kid playing at UMASS.

Lol! I recall a heavy night of drinking after finding out LA had traded for Cloutier!