HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Los Angeles Kings (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=42)
-   -   Help everywhere (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=73800)

Fat Elvis 04-25-2004 12:14 PM

Help everywhere
 
We need some help in every position. Are you that comfortable that we are set in any position? We have no real center coming any time soon, After Fro who do we really have that you are totally confident at LW that will help us? RW, well Brown showed he is willing to crash into anybody, but he didn't really show me any skills that make me think he is a sure fire star in the making. He spent more time trying to get his balance than showing the offensive side to his game. Kanko is an unknown until we know how AM uses him. Goalies, don't make me laugh, even if we draft one of these 2 this year we are still 3-4 years away from seeing them. D, well we have Grebs and Gleason that we've seen and I like, but are 3 Dmen enough with Lubo (who gets hurt yearly) to sustain any form of stability on our blue line? My point is that we have a question marks at every position, I mean who the heck knows how Rome, Tambs, Boyle, Brown, Cammy (he may be concussion prone with 2-3 in 2 years, not good), Steckel, Hogeboom, Petiot, and Karlsson will do? We know little about them and yet they are our top prospects, why because they were drafted high? or because their skills projects into the NHL well? Our draft history with so few drafted players accually on the roster contributing, I strongly recommend we trade our pick #11 for players that will help us right now, maybe to Buff for Noronen and Pyatt?
In the off season I say we go after Mellanby, Chris Simon, O'donnell, Teppo, Primeau or Zhamnov and others and look to possibly trade Camms(his aching mellon is a concern) for a Hartnell or Hall from Nash, I'm sure we'd have to sweeten the pot but I'd still do it.
I just don't see our organization as rosey as alot of others here. We could use upgrades across the board imo, so lets do it.

punchy1 04-25-2004 02:07 PM

Grand post.

I don't agree as far as out prospects go where our defence and our right wings are concerned and would even say that I think we are one of the deeper teams in the league where third line/fourth line energy types are concerned. (Andy Murray types)

I would say that on D we are more than set where our youth is concerned.

Still, I would make the following changes.

Have a look at all the RFAs/UFAs that I listed in that long thread. I reckon that LOADS of teams will be dumping players to trim salary. DT has done a brilliant job in positioning
us to be buyers this offseason and I like allot of the players that are already available (ufas) and think that there will also be some great trades this offseason.

Allot will depend on the CBA but, that will happen in Sept so it will be interesting to see if anyone does anything prior.

There are defencemen like Zhitnik and Sean Odie, both former Kings and both EXACTLY the type of defencemen we need (opinion). Both would be huge upgrades over the Dempseys and Modrys of the org.

Pick up Zhitnik or even only Sean O'Donnel and we have a well better defence. Odie is a tough as nails bluey type who has been to the dance and Zhitnik is an allstar two way player with knife.

Odonnel/Zhitnik
Visnovsky/Matty
Gleason/Corvo
Grebeshkov

Would be a tight defence if ever there were for the Kings. I agree that we could use them on the team or players like them but, even if we do nothing, I reckon we aren't in bad shape this coming year.

Dempsey/Miller
Matty/Corvo
Gleason/Visnovsky
Grbeshkov

Isn't that bad. If we sign Rome we have another great young defencemen in the wings and when Petiot finishes school, we have another.

I think we will pick up one defencive defenceman to add to the mix and replace Modry (god help us) and that will be good.

On RW I reckon we are dead full where our youth are concerned. Hogeboom/Kanko/Brown/Pushkaryev/Boyle/Karlson and Steckel has played RW as well give us a nice mix of grinders and snipers if any of them make it to the NHL.

Left Wing, I agree with you totally. Frolov and then it gets thin.

Center, we need massive help at center. After dealing Aulin away we have nobody at this point who could be ready at center and I don't see a true number one in our system for my pound.

Boyle is a center but I reckon he will play RW with us. Steckel isn't likely to become a number one center in the NHL. Could happen but I would be suprised. Cammy very well could and should be a top six center on our team but he won't and he certainly isn't the answer to our first line center needs this season. His reported concussion makes him cloudy as well.

I think we need to find a top notch elite type young centerman WAY more than we need a top talent goalie this offseason. A goalie we draft, will be at best able to help us in three years if he developes the way most do. More likely five years away.

We need help there no doubt but, with how absolutely blankered hard it is to draft a goalie and keep him, I would go after a center or two first and try to snag a goalie later for this year. I don't know.

So, while I see different areas of needs or have a different idea of what our depth in the system is then you, I absolutely agree that if we cannot make a deal to move up for a Malkin or a Tukonen type of center, (Stafford?) I would deal away our 11th pick as part of a package for the best young top line type talent I could get.

Tadite 04-25-2004 03:32 PM

Center: We all know the void at this position. We just don't have a 1st liner and there is no one who we have a legit chance of geting....

LW: This is fine with Frolov, Luc, Avery, And then whoever is on the 4th line. Thats a decent to good LW. Frolov seems to be turning into a legit top-3 LW and right now is a legit top-6 LW. Luc is geting old but he could still have just enough gas for one more season. Avery is a great 3rd liner and maybe Barney can move to the LW if Luc starts to slide.

RW: Depends on if Palffy comes back if he does then we have Palffy, Klatt, Lappy, Cowan, Barney. That can be a decent to good RW with a legit top-3 in Palffy and two guys who could be legit top-6 in Klatt and Barney. Both Cowan and Lappy are great 3rd/4th Liners.

Defense: Its young and has some problems with injury. Like much of the Kings if it can stay healthy its decend to good. Matty is a rock, Lubo (when healthy) is a great offensive d-man, Miller could be a great physical d-man if he can stay healthy next year, Gleason seems to have worked his way into the lineup, Corvo to me is a horrable player but would be fine as a 6th d-man. After that you have some question marks. Is Zizka good enough to make the jump, do we resign Dempsey or Modry, and is Denis ready to make the NHL? All tough questions but at the end of the day a lineup of:

Matty, Miller,
Lub, Dempsy,
Gleason, Grebs,
Zizka, Corvo, Holland

Is decent and if the kids mature could be nice to have.

So things are in my opinion only weak in the center and are heavily dependent on the youth movement for much of the lineup. But hey this is what the Sharks had going for them last year (although they had a much MUCH better goalie).

Fat Elvis 04-25-2004 03:52 PM

I agree about the Sharks, I liked what they did when they moved some of their aging vets while they still had good trade value. They also have a much tougher team to play against. They have big Dmen who punish along the boards and infront of the net. They have speedy forwards mixed with solid vets like Ricci and Vinny, and they have a coach who knows how to best handle their youth. Look how he handled the Ducks and Caps way back when, he made them good teams. I'm not disappointed in the prospects we have, some have written some interesting scouting reports on them. But most are a few years away at best. Some believe that the Romes, Boyles, Browns and Kankos are going to be able to step in without much trouble and make us contenders. I question that thinking a little, you may turn out right but odds are against you. If you take out Luc, Klatt and Army (all over 32), we don't have guys that we can comfortably move in and take up where they left off. And when we're counting so highly on Luc, Klatt and Army that should say something about our first 2 lines. We are not as deep as most of us think. I wish we could just dance like a banana :banana: , but I think we have a lot more work before we can imo.

David A. Rainer 04-25-2004 04:59 PM

There isn't a single team that has prospects enough to be set at every position across the board. The idea is to have as many of your own prospects filling as many holes as possible and supplement the rest with free agency.

I can say this much, this organization has more of it's own prospects capable of filling holes in the NHL roster now than at any point in it's history. Some of the prospects won't pan out, and some that we are not even considering will be adequate NHLers. But the more prospect depth you have, the likelihood of finding more NHLers from your own system, the more of your own prospects that fill your roster, and the fewer the organization relies on free agency. As of now, the Kings will have a large portion of their roster filled with home-grown talent, but that does not mean that their entire roster needs to be. DT will eventually fill-in the holes, he always does.

I think the Kings are not as deep in proven NHL talent as other teams (obviously). But I think the Kings are just as deep in future options as any other team.

Fat Elvis 04-25-2004 08:58 PM

Dt has proven nothing. What holes has he filled? To say he always does (fill in he holes) can't be more wrong. Dude , we haven't made the playoffs in 2 years, to say he's been successful in filling holes since his tenure is absurd. A succesful team has a banner over head that states more than divisional champs. F that. If everyone here is fine with having only divisional champs above their rafters is a complete and utter dummy. Cup! that is the goal here, not hey we tried hard and some of our guys got hurt theory. I've said this before " we have some Apologist in our presence. I'd like to see us win. Do we have in our system what it takes to win? Don't see it since none of these guys are winning at any level. But what should I expect from people who think that Ebel and Corvo are great additions to our team. :dunno: :shakehead :banghead: Look at what we need and address it with performers, not pretenders.

David A. Rainer 04-25-2004 09:14 PM

DT has done great with what was handed to him. He started not only with a completely barren farm system, but the farm system didn't even exist. The team had no AHL team, no ECHL team, no draft philosophy, and only signed drafted players if they were ready for the NHL straight out of juniors/college. He started with a team that was in complete and utter shambles.

Rome was no built in a day, nor with the Kings. New Jersey, Colorado, Dallas all went thru years of losing and top draft picks before they won anything. They had to lose because they couldn't just go out and get "performers" because they don't come for free. You need something to trade to get them because if a team has them, they're not going to give them away. So they need years of developing the farm system so they would have something to 1.) put on the NHL roster from their own system; and 2.) trade away for top talent. Likewise, the Kings have had to start from absolutely nothing, as explained above. It wasn't 4 years ago that the Kings were dead last, DEAD LAST, in farm system rank. What the hell do you want them to do when they've got nothing to trade? So I say, for what DT was handed when he took over the job, he has done remarkable to gather the prospects that he has considering he hasn't had a draft pick better than #13, outside of Oli Jokinen whom he traded away to get Palffy (further illustrating my point that you need depth first before you can acquire "performers"). The Jerseys and Colorados of the world were drafting 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc overall.

What do you want him to do? Waive a freakin' magic wand and poof, the Kings have depth? It took time to get the prospect depth the Kings have, and now that DT has it, he can make the necessary moves (either by trade or free agency) to get the players needed. Who has he gotten? He brought in Palffy. He brought in Allison, which at the time was heralded by EVERYONE as a great move. He brought in Straka and even got Pitts to pick up more than half his salary, but that only happened because they had the prospect depth to trade away. He drafted and developed Frolov as well as the other crop of prospects who will be playing in the next couple of years.

I'm not an apologist, I'm a REALIST. I think it's fans who want the knee-jerk reaction of mortgage everything and the kitchen sink to get a little playoff success that has put the Kings in the situation they've been in. If the player-development philosophy had been in place ten years before DT got here, this team would be winning now. But no. It's the short-sightedness of the old regime and the knee-jerk fans that want instant gratification because they get frustrated that other teams are more successful. And if they continue to have their way, the Kings will forever be stuck in the perpetual cycle of not enough talent on the roster, talent that is too expense to keep around, and no prospects to replace them with because one keeps being traded off to acquire the short-term gains of the other. For the most part, to get to be one of those more successful teams you have to start at the bottom and work your way up. But that doesn't come over night.

And drafted players rarely make an NHL roster right away, unless you're one of the top players in a draft year like a Horton or Staal. Hell, look at the struggles Fleury is going thru. And you want to trade for Pyatt? Ya, there's a "performer". And our top prospects are top prospects because 1.) the Kings scouts and player developmental personel are high on them; and 2.) they produce at a rate that is commesurate with other top NHL players that played in the minors before them. And I trust the Kings scouting department more than anyone, ANYONE, on these boards because, although they may not be perfect, they are privy to far more, FAR MORE information than either you or I and know how to recognize it. So I say, they were starting at ABSOLUTE rock bottom. Give them time to produce the prospect "performers" you are looking for. They've already produced Frolov which is more than the Kings have done since Robitaille for Christ sake!

Fat Elvis 04-25-2004 10:45 PM

They didn't *produce* Frolov, they drafted him and then he played in Russia and then they brought him over the pond when they were shocked by his improvement. You give our developement too much credit for developing anybody. Who have they truely developed? Truely, from draft to team, who? Time blah blah, dude we have not had a top 10 pick in a while and the Allison trade was trading back the same guys we traded for a couple years earlier. The Palffy trade was robbery in trading a kid who was brought in too early (Olli) who didn't perform in NY either, Biron who's still a stiff, Blake who's now found his niche', and who? No one benefited from the deal, it was a wash, both teams still suck. Do organizations change over night? Of course not. I'm not stating that we should trade the *farm* for the cup tomorrow, because we don't have what it takes. I'm saying that we have still very little that anyone but us is interested in. You claim we are better off, are we? We are still playing golf during the playoffs, and we are still FAR away from generating any playoff fear in the rest of the league. Look at our prospects and do you honestly believe that they will lead us to the cup? Why? What do you see in them that the rest of the league doesn't? Once again, who have WE developed that we can be proud of? From start to finish, who?

David A. Rainer 04-25-2004 11:16 PM

The players that have worked their way from draft to NHL team are just now starting to pour in. Since I can't include European prospects, you've eliminated a good chunk because the Kings tend to like the incentives that come with european draft pciks. So, I have to find someone who has been drafted and worked his way thru the system. But then the Kings have only had a developmental system (that is Manchester and Reading) for 3 years now. Once they acquired their development teams, the first step is to stock them with quantity and then to produce quality. This quality, now three years later, is just now starting to come in. Barney, Cammy, Gleason, Grebs and Zizka each made contributions, albeit modest, but again, you need to start somewhere. But still, it's only been three years and the quality is just starting to get there. This offseason, the Kings have to sign 8 prospects into their system or lose them altogether. The previous offseason high was four, so that's double. The talent arriving in Manchester is starting to pick up steam. You summarily dismiss the time it takes to turn an organization around, from the ground up and that's your perrogative. But it takes time, plain and simple. Colorado and Jersey were losing for many years before they started to win. Hell, Detroit went 17 years where they missed the playoffs 15 times.

I'm not sure what you mean by top 10 pick. In the draft? Yes, that's true. It's because they're competitive every year, just not competitive enough. The alternative is to go thru terrible losing seasons to get the top 5 draft picks, but then we'd have just as many frustrated fans that want the joys of having a hockey team without being willing to suffer thru the pains and demand that they trade off their top picks to get over-priced, over-valued NHL players because they want a little something to cheer for.

I don't know who won the Palffy deal. But any team that acquires Palffy cannot be said to have lost.

They had to trade away to get Allison the same guys they traded for because they didn't have any tradeable prospects. Had they, might have been able to.

Yes, the Kings did not make the playoffs, but that does not mean that we're not better off than we were five years ago. The team still didn't make the playoffs, but at least the organization has a well of prospects they can tap. Something they didn't have in the mid 90's because this team had a history of trading away 1st round picks. They were caught in that cycle of terrible NHL roster and no prospects to improve it with, so they just kept on losing. Is that what you want to go back to? But then if your position is that the worst team in the league is just as well off as the last team not to make the playoffs, then I can't argue with that. But then I don't think that tells the whole story and is just a convienent way of expressing frustration and does not actually posit an argument.

Do I honestly believe our prospects can lead us to a Cup? Yes. I think they have just as good of a chance (if not better) than ANY other team in the league.

I don't know what you mean by "what do I see in them that the rest of the league does not". How do you know what the rest of the league feels about the Kings prospects (as if the collective understanding of an entire league of 30 separate entities could actually be ascertained)?

Fat Elvis 04-26-2004 09:43 AM

You make very good points and I'll admit that you're probably right on most of them. Dt has been the VP and GM since 97'. The also had ahl working agreements before Manchester not unlike what most teams had. We were on of the first teams to spend to have our own, which I agree it's a very good thing. I just would have thought that we would have been better these last two years than we have been, and may have regressed some imo. Gleason was a trade for a prospect and a move I'd do many more of (Miller, Ebel, Corvo, Straka). I don't want to trade all our *prospects* but rather trade for somebody elses, since it's my opinion some teams are better at the developement of their players than we have been.

punchy1 04-26-2004 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KING ELVI
They didn't *produce* Frolov, they drafted him and then he played in Russia and then they brought him over the pond when they were shocked by his improvement. You give our developement too much credit for developing anybody. Who have they truely developed? Truely, from draft to team, who? Time blah blah, dude we have not had a top 10 pick in a while and the Allison trade was trading back the same guys we traded for a couple years earlier. The Palffy trade was robbery in trading a kid who was brought in too early (Olli) who didn't perform in NY either, Biron who's still a stiff, Blake who's now found his niche', and who? No one benefited from the deal, it was a wash, both teams still suck. Do organizations change over night? Of course not. I'm not stating that we should trade the *farm* for the cup tomorrow, because we don't have what it takes. I'm saying that we have still very little that anyone but us is interested in. You claim we are better off, are we? We are still playing golf during the playoffs, and we are still FAR away from generating any playoff fear in the rest of the league. Look at our prospects and do you honestly believe that they will lead us to the cup? Why? What do you see in them that the rest of the league doesn't? Once again, who have WE developed that we can be proud of? From start to finish, who?


Hi mate. I am one of the people who take his share of heat for not being an apologist. I am also one of the people who feel that our staff should be held to the same level of accountability that they hold our players to.

Yet, I don't agree with your position on our prospects or our system and the talent within it.

I do agree with the notion that we are making a mistake by relying too hard on veteran fill ins but feel that is a coaching issue and not something that is the fault of the depth of our system.

So, to start with on our prospects I want to say this. Frolov *was* produced by our system. All players who are from Europe tend to develope on their own teams and then come to North America. In Frolovs case, we did such a good job that he didn't need to spend any time in Manchester to make it to the NHL.

To the rest, they are all developing in our system in the same manner that all prospects throughout the league develope. Some play in our ECHL league. Some player in our Manchester AHL league. Some play on the NCAA teams they were drafted from and some play on teams in Europe, some that are owned by the Kings and some play for teams in Europe that we don't own.

My point is that this is how all prospects are developed so we are doing a great job I feel in developing our own talent in the same manner that all teams do.

We have drafted and or developed Visnovsky/Gleason(developed)/Frolov/Belanger/Barney/Corvo/Sean Odonnel/Phillipe Boucher/ and many more who are in the NHL or getting time in the NHL that have turned the corner since DT took over the helm.

We have had solid success in drafting and developing players under DTs watch and I feel better than we ever had in our teams history. I feel that our prospects are amoung the tops in the league and vae at least as good a shot at making to the NHL as any other teams lads do and more than all of them.


I also think that you aren't exactly right when you say that they aren't winning at any level. Conner James just won the NCAA Championship. Brady Murray won a gold medal at the Juniour Champs and was Rookie of the year. If you have a look at our European prospects we have a couple of them that have gone very far in their leagues playoffs and at least one who not only won a championship but was the MVP of his teams playoff success.

Our lads are actually winning an awful lot everywhere they are playing with the exception of Manchester and then, this is that teams second year of existence with the Kings prospects taking them further in the playoffs this year than last and, if it were left together for next year with the addition of this years picks and adds from our NCAA grads and Juniours/Euros who should be with the team, i fancy we will do even better next year.


So, I see us as being dead solid in the system and that as early as next season we should see three (at least) of our kids ready to fill in on the NHL Kings and after that, we could be brilliant with Pushkaryev/Karlson/Tambellini and many more being ready or close to it.

Where I see the problem is that I question rather or not we will see our lads given a true shot at actually helping our team by being called up to fill the spots they have trained to play and were drafted for their entire hockey lives and not by being made into fourth line energy players.

If our AHL system works propperly, our lads should be very well acquainted with our system and able to step onto the Kings and only have to pick up linemates style and the speed of the game to make the adjustment and not have to sit back on the fourth line while trying to learn the game.

To my way of thinking, taking a rookie player and making him have to play a defencive only role on the fourth line is setting him up for failure.(unless they actually are an energy type)

Putting a sniper who has always been a sniper out with bangers who aren't looking to score and then sending them down as failing when they don't play that role well enough is the coaches fault and not the young players in my opinion.




I feel that this offseason is the biggest one in the tenure of DT and AM. DT has done a brilliant job at making us have gobs of room to fill talent under the cap if he decides to do so by the way he has structured our vets contracts and AM will have a solid team that won't have the spector of Allison/Deader/Ziggy being all out with inuries to take to a cup run.

If DT does his job well, we will do great and succeed. If AM does his job well.

If not, then I am one of the clean house guys after the next hockey season.

agentfouser 04-26-2004 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by punchy1
To my way of thinking, taking a rookie player and making him have to play a defencive only role on the fourth line is setting him up for failure.(unless they actually are an energy type)

Putting a sniper who has always been a sniper out with bangers who aren't looking to score and then sending them down as failing when they don't play that role well enough is the coaches fault and not the young players in my opinion.

i disagree. in today's defense-first nhl, where team-oriented play is what wins (see: san jose sharks, calgary flames), you need every player to be as well-rounded as possible. there is no room in this league for players who cannot contribute at both ends of the ice. that's how i would run my hockey team, and just because a player may be classified as a "sniper" doesn't mean that he gets a pass at learning other aspects of the game.

as for rookies on the fourth line, that seems very sensible to me. the kids need to learn the dedication and work ethic it takes to succeed at this level of competition, they need to round out their game and learn to play defense within the team's system, and they need to know that prime top-line icetime is something that must be earned. allowing rookies to learn the nhl game on the fourth line also gives them less responsiblity, and specifically avoids setting them up for failure.

these young players are budding professionals who either already are or will be paid millions of dollars for thier services. if they have the talent to play in an offensive role, they sure as hell have the talent to play in a defensive role, and they had better get the work ethic to do so, if they want to succeed.


Quote:

I do agree with the notion that we are making a mistake by relying too hard on veteran fill ins but feel that is a coaching issue and not something that is the fault of the depth of our system.
this is where we totally agree. our veteran fill-ins were stinking the place up, and i think that our young players should have been given bigger roles at the end of the season when the veterans weren't getting it done. when carter was floating around at the beginning of the losing streak and acting like the puck was a grenade on his stick, his ass should have found the bench and some super glue and barney should have been put in. i think murray went with the "safe" veterans even when they were seriously underperforming.

Old Hickory 04-26-2004 01:37 PM

The mistake this team made was thinking everything could be fixed in 5 years. The teams had no prospects, no farm system and the scouts weren't used to having draft picks.
I consider 97-99 warm up years. We have made amazing strides since them with our drafting and we are very clsoe to seeing the fruits of their labor.

The problem was in 1997 we didn't have a solid young core to build around. For the 5 year plan to work we would have needed a bunch of 20-25 year olds who were already contributing.
We have that now and now we should make a run and get rid of the Stumpels of the world

punchy1 04-26-2004 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingsjohn
The mistake this team made was thinking everything could be fixed in 5 years. The teams had no prospects, no farm system and the scouts weren't used to having draft picks.
I consider 97-99 warm up years. We have made amazing strides since them with our drafting and we are very clsoe to seeing the fruits of their labor.

The problem was in 1997 we didn't have a solid young core to build around. For the 5 year plan to work we would have needed a bunch of 20-25 year olds who were already contributing.
We have that now and now we should make a run and get rid of the Stumpels of the world


Excellent points John.

I agree and feel that we are right close with our next batch of prospects to seeing how truly deep we are going to be with the kind of players that are Andys lads types who fit his system better then what we have seen.


*
I agree with what you are saying Nav and that means I am not explaining my position propperly. (not that you cannot be right, just that for you to disagree with my position then I am saying something wrong since I thought I were saying something similar).


Here is what I mean. Of course Every Player HAS to be solid defencively. I used the same teams that you did to make my example. The Sharks have Cheechoo amoung many who are banging hitting grinding snipers on their team as do the flames so of course, every player HAS to be able to play effectively defencively as well as offencively.

That isn't what I were saying at all, hence the idea that I must not be explaining myself correctly.

What I am saying is this. If you draft a sniper who ISN'T a grinder it isn't out of line to demand he plays solid defencively, it IS out of line to force him to play as a checking forward when that isn't what his game is or has ever been about.

It is about asset management. If a player that you have drafted has solid skills but they don't fit the system or team you have built or are tring to build, the right answer is to trade him rather then force him into becoming recognized as a failure when he simply hasn't been one. He just hasn't fit in *your* desires of what You wanted to mould him into.

For example, Mike Cammelleri is never going to be a banging third or fourth line player and that isn't what he was drafted to be nor was it close to what he has ever played throughout his entire hockey career. To give him limited minutes on the third line while giving him a sniff of the second line is as good of a way to develope his game as any but, to place him on the fourth line and then not be happy with his play is the coaches fault, not the players.

You could argue the same with Pavel Rosa with the exception of the fact that we have no idea if Pavel can play better defencively then he did when he were younger in the NHL.

It is like making Craig Johnson be a first line winger. It simply isn't his game.


Now I am not saying that Andys system is wrong at all and I do agree that the Sharks/Flames/Blues/Leafs and a few other teams that have built a team full of hitting tough to play against players who can also score is the right way to go, but, each of these teams drafted or acquired their players looking for the kind of games that they have delivered and expected.

They didn't draft players who are snipers and get upset when they couldn't be bangers.

The next wave of prospects that we are likely to see are closer to Andy types of players as well as the type that the Flames Sharks Leafs et al are having so much success with.

Kanko, Hogeboom, Karlson, Boyle, Steckle, Guerin, Murray and a few others are all bangers and a couple of them have hands as well. That isn't Cammelleris game nor is it ever going to be. It isn't allot of players in our systems game but that doesn't make them unworthy of NHL ice time. It means they don't fit Andys style or system and should be dealt in favor of players who do.

I would also say that I don't blame DT for drafting players that don't fit what our teams system has become. It takes time to develope and recognize a style that you want for your team.

Since Cammelleris draft I think we have been picking up exactly the kind of prospects that we have seen on the Flames/Sharks etc.

That is why I would love to see players like Rosa and Cammelleri traded to another team and become great players. I would expect us to get back players that fit our system or style better for them and that since they were Kings that they will always get my support.


Also, if anything, by putting young players out of your fourth line, a line who's job is to be the stopper for the opositions scoring lines typically, you are in my opinion doing nothing more then putting them in a situation where they have a better chance at failing then anywhere else on the team.

For snipers I would rather they have to earn their spot straight out of camp and if they can't then they should only come up when a player at their spot goes down. Putting Squidd on the fourth line, a line he played very well on by the by, were a mistake and a misuse of his talents. If he didn't have the salt to be in the top six, then send him down until he does.

Of course, we could get into a debate about Andy Murrays desicion making regarding young players but that has been beaten to death, no point. I just think that if you have players who don't fit what you expect out of them that you have mistakenly drafted then you should accept the mistake and trade them rather than try and mould them into something that they aren't.

I hate to keep using squid because there are a number of other players that we have mistakenly played out of position but, in his case, he played as well as anyone else we had everywhere he were put but, a 5'9" sniper banger of Squidds type wasn't the best man for the job on the fourth line when Brown/Barney/Cowan types were available. So, I agree that it is everyones responsibility to be hitting grinding snipers or stoppers, it Isn't every players responsibility to play positions they were never trained for or drafted to be and then be upset with them when they aren't as good as the players who are of those particular skillsets.


It weren't CJ's fault he could never ever be a legitimate top six player in the NHL, using him there only pointed that out and made him a failure when he played there and took ice time away from players who were better suited to the position.

I hope that explains what I was trying to say better as I think we are saying close to the same things

Fat Elvis 04-26-2004 03:01 PM

Everyone is have made valid points in all their takes, one reason for starting this discussion was to be able to talk about our organization, what we have, what we need, what we'd change, and what we'd keep the same. I would like to trade some of our vets the way SJ and Cal did. We may be able to pick up a Dumont, Hartnell, Hall, Gautheir(sp), goalie(put your favorite choice here), and then add a few key vets that fill voids that our team has. Do we have interesting prospects? Absolutely (Push, Boyle, Karlsson) we don't really know how good these kids can be. That's interesting. Grebs and Gleason(whom Ott developed ;) ) can be difference makers on the blue line along with Petiot. Our offense is less known and is a question mark imo. Hopefully it all pans out and we'll be drinking from the cup, but I think we need to add some players that are system just doesn't have. Every team is the same way, but I hope DT and crew take the next step and do some brave moves that can put us over the top.

Old Hickory 04-26-2004 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KING ELVI
I would like to trade some of our vets the way SJ and Cal did. We may be able to pick up a Dumont, Hartnell, Hall, Gautheir(sp), goalie(put your favorite choice here), and then add a few key vets that fill voids that our team has. Do we have interesting prospects? Absolutely (Push, Boyle, Karlsson) we don't really know how good these kids can be. Grebs and Gleason(whom Ott developed ;) ) can be difference makers on the blue line along with Petiot. Our offense is less known and is a question mark imo. Hopefully it all pans out and we'll be drinking from the cup, but I think we need to add some players that are system just doesn't have. Every team is the same way, but I hope DT and crew take the next step and do some brave moves that can put us over the top.

Within the next 2 years we will a ton of prospects graduating. Some that you didn't mention, Rome, Hogeboom, Kanko, I think Brown will have a much better sophomore campaign, Tambellini, Steckel just to name a few.
We should imclude Barney, Visnovsky , Frolov and other youngins and build around this core. Don't trade for vets maybe sign a FA or two. But keep Army, Klatt, Palffy is you can and dump them in a season and a half for more youth.
Right now this team is very young and very old. I have said it before, I will say is again losing Ally and Deader killed this team.

punchy1 04-26-2004 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KING ELVI
Everyone is have made valid points in all their takes, one reason for starting this discussion was to be able to talk about our organization, what we have, what we need, what we'd change, and what we'd keep the same. I would like to trade some of our vets the way SJ and Cal did. We may be able to pick up a Dumont, Hartnell, Hall, Gautheir(sp), goalie(put your favorite choice here), and then add a few key vets that fill voids that our team has. Do we have interesting prospects? Absolutely (Push, Boyle, Karlsson) we don't really know how good these kids can be. That's interesting. Grebs and Gleason(whom Ott developed ;) ) can be difference makers on the blue line along with Petiot. Our offense is less known and is a question mark imo. Hopefully it all pans out and we'll be drinking from the cup, but I think we need to add some players that are system just doesn't have. Every team is the same way, but I hope DT and crew take the next step and do some brave moves that can put us over the top.


I agree with you in that our system as it stands today isn't enough or doesn't have enough in it to take us to a cup.

But, I also would say that at this point it isn't supposed to. KJ said it pretty well. Allison and Deader killed us. That is to say that if those two are in so many things are possible that we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now. That said, I don't feel that our prospect system is a mess at all and is one of the best in the league.

I have started a couple threads regarding the players in our system and those who responded with any integrity as to the what the parameters of the threads were about one thing can be said, of the many players in our system a better than average percentage of them should see ice time in the NHL and that is a great thing.

One thing to consider when talking about Ally and Deader not being injured though is what our system would still look like. On the Kings is another thing entirely but, in the system, I see a couple of weaknesses and so did allot of the people who responded to the prospect threads I put up.

We have no potentially "Elite" prospect centers in the system. We have no "Elite" prospect goalies in the system.

We have Boyle, who right well could be the most amazing center of his kind to ever play the game but that would be a truely amazing accomplishment. He is more likely to be a big top six scoring forward then a franchise center. With him, who knows what will happen. Other than him though, we have no centers who look like they will be the kind of player that you build your team around.

We have Zaba and Munce who both have had solid enough draft seasons in net but, neither are close at this point to being NHL ready. Every year players like them are drafted in nets. You just won't know for awhile longer what will come of them.

I did a mock draft and with Schwarz possibly available for the 11th pick I had him or even Montoya going to us. I have since changed my mind. Why, Two reasons.

The first is that we have never once in the history of our team come close to developing a great goalie and I see nothing in place at this time that makes me feel we are capable of doing so. I would hate for us to draft a player that is so highly thought of in nets that we rush him into the NHL and ruin him, as we may have done in the past with Stauber etc.

Another reason is that if you look around, of the teams in the playoffs that are doing well some have been able to find their goalies as needed.

The Wings/Fliers/Flames etc all have goalies they didn't develope. I think that it is possible to do that and we stand a better chance of taking a goalie from a team like Buffalo or Montreal or any team that has more goalies then spots for them and have a great track record at developing them.

We do a right smart job at developing talent and will start seeing that next season or should anyways. We need a top notch center and that is our most pressing need in my books. We need one in the system desperately. If we had one, when Allison went down we could at least have given him some time in the spot to develope his game.

Thats what I think.

David A. Rainer 04-26-2004 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KING ELVI
You make very good points and I'll admit that you're probably right on most of them. Dt has been the VP and GM since 97'. The also had ahl working agreements before Manchester not unlike what most teams had. We were on of the first teams to spend to have our own, which I agree it's a very good thing. I just would have thought that we would have been better these last two years than we have been, and may have regressed some imo. Gleason was a trade for a prospect and a move I'd do many more of (Miller, Ebel, Corvo, Straka). I don't want to trade all our *prospects* but rather trade for somebody elses, since it's my opinion some teams are better at the developement of their players than we have been.

I think we all feel that way. I think we all felt that this past season was supposed to be a great season for this team. But the injuries the last two years, although not an excuse, cannot be ignored. Look how well we did with the team we had. Imagine what it would have been like if we had Deader, Allison and Ziggy all season. :amazed:

But I also see what you are saying. One thing I say all the time is: never confuse results for effort, nor effort for results. That is, evening if you're not winning, you can't be too down if the effort is there. However, even if the effort is there, at some point you need results. The effort was there, and I think that was a result of AM. The results were not, but I don't think I can place that at the feet of DT. He did everything he could to put a winning team on the ice. From that point on, it's out of his hands and into the hands of the hockey gods.

Oye ve... another long offseason is on it's way. We need a little venting from time to time.

David A. Rainer 04-26-2004 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by navigator
i disagree. in today's defense-first nhl, where team-oriented play is what wins (see: san jose sharks, calgary flames), you need every player to be as well-rounded as possible. there is no room in this league for players who cannot contribute at both ends of the ice. that's how i would run my hockey team, and just because a player may be classified as a "sniper" doesn't mean that he gets a pass at learning other aspects of the game.

I agree, but ideally I would like that to be learned in Manchester. I dislike learning-on-the-job hockey, but I do understand that there has to be some learning at the NHL level because you're not playing against the same level of competition in the AHL.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Navigator
this is where we totally agree. our veteran fill-ins were stinking the place up, and i think that our young players should have been given bigger roles at the end of the season when the veterans weren't getting it done. when carter was floating around at the beginning of the losing streak and acting like the puck was a grenade on his stick, his ass should have found the bench and some super glue and barney should have been put in. i think murray went with the "safe" veterans even when they were seriously underperforming.

I said this to kingsjohn a couple of weeks ago: I think the organization to just dynamite the team and sell off all the veterans except for Matty and Palffy. I think AMs system is so good and he can get as good of results from young and hungry up-and-comers as he can with top priced vets. So why not find out what a bunch of hungry kids can do now that the Kings finally have the young talent to try it with.

David A. Rainer 04-26-2004 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingsjohn
The mistake this team made was thinking everything could be fixed in 5 years. The teams had no prospects, no farm system and the scouts weren't used to having draft picks.
I consider 97-99 warm up years. We have made amazing strides since them with our drafting and we are very clsoe to seeing the fruits of their labor.

The problem was in 1997 we didn't have a solid young core to build around. For the 5 year plan to work we would have needed a bunch of 20-25 year olds who were already contributing.
We have that now and now we should make a run and get rid of the Stumpels of the world

Man, I'm just agreeing with everyone today. I feel the same way. 5 year plans work when you already have the talent in your farm system. The Kings did no have it 5 years ago and so it was a little foolish to believe that it would take only 5 years. The Kings farm system was ranked #11 by HF (take it for what it's worth) at this time last year and #1 after the draft. It's at that point when you say, now we are on a 5 year plan. Because in 5 years, those prospects will have finished their tenure in the CHL and NCAA and will have a couple of years in the AHL/NHL under their belt. It is at that point that they will be ready to not just assert themselves in the NHL, but excel.

So, as far as I am concerned, we are on year 2 of the realistic 5 year plan.

Old Hickory 04-26-2004 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeathFromAbove
So, as far as I am concerned, we are on year 2 of the realistic 5 year plan.

I am think the five year plan should start right now. In 4-5 years Fro , Brown, Camm(if he doesn't get anymore concussions) Gleason, and Grebs are going to be in the prime, Avery will 28, A few more prospects will join them (Rome, Petiot, Hogeboom, Kanko,etc) A few more draft picks may graduate and we might add some you via trades.
Palffy,Army, Lappy, Norstrom and Klatt should be retained to teach the kids the work ethic and to win a few games. Palffy will fetch a ton via trade(a return similar to Blake IMO) Miller should be traded once the dust has settled from the CBA, Klatt will be a prize at a trade deadline in 2 years. I'd hold onto Norstrom for another 2 seasons and trade him to the team of his choice at the deadline. Same goes for Lappy

agentfouser 04-27-2004 02:03 AM

i like what you're saying, but i would keep a bit more than just norstrom and palffy. i would not trade klatt, and armstrong and laperriere have tremendous work ethics that are outstanding examples for young players. dempsey is a strong defenseman who can help out by contributing offense from the blueline and is only 28, so i would keep him as well. you have to have some veterans to show the youth how its done.

a guy i WOULD trade, however, is aaron miller. he could bring back a very decent prospect, and i don't think he'll be missed much.

and here are a few things i would like see next season:
- give one of the young players an "A". rotate the captaincy among norstrom, palffy, and laperriere, and rotate the alternate captaincies among klatt, armstrong, frolov, avery, belanger, and visnovsky. its time for that "older(in the sense that they're not rookies)" group of home-grown talent (avery, frolov, belanger, visnovsky) to get involved in leading the team. i think it would do a lot for their confidence and would be a strong example of the rewards available to the young players that play hard and contribute.
- pirnes should get much more playing time. the guy got better over the course of the season, is going to come back better prepared for the north american game, and was the mvp of his championship-winning team in sweden. this guy has game, and he's going to bring it.
- over the last few years, we've seen the incorporation of one defenseman from the system per year - corvo, gleason, and i'm really looking forward to seeing that continue with grebeshkov, rome (hopefully) and petoit over the next three.
- i want barney in the lineup from day one - i want to see this guy earn himself an nhl job on a permanent basis while scoring 20 goals. he's got the tools to do it, and i think he's right there.

Fat Elvis 04-27-2004 09:42 AM

I agree navigator with pretty much everything you said. I like Matty as our captain, but for the A's i'd definitely rotate it, good idea. Lappy and Klatt are solid vets that only help us, Dempsey and Lubo are good offensive guys on the B-line and Pirnes and Barney need to make the next step from 4th line center and fill-in to 3rd line center and top 2 power forward imo. AM needs to show more confidence in some of our young guys and put some sort of responsibility on their shoulders, it may provide the kids with that sense of pride that leadership starts to develope. Grebs could earn a spot from the first month on through and I'd like to see Clarke make it through training camp and earn a contributing role on the big club, the kid has moxie. Love to trade Miller and there seems to be interest on the trade board for him, use his money more wisely and bring in talent to help out down the middle. Hate to say it but I'd look to trade Camms if we do indeed have questions about his hurting melon, trade him before he becomes non-tradable.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:53 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.