HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Los Angeles Kings (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=42)
-   -   Allison News (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=92338)

ComrieFanatic 07-19-2004 05:38 PM

Allison News
 
was just reading tsn.ca and they said that allison has been symptom free since march and has been doing some light skating. it says he has yet to skate with contact. also says he wants to come back, but only when he is 100%, and he is aware his salary will take a cut and will be on a games played condition

kingsfan25 07-19-2004 05:58 PM

This is the article: http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp...07&hubName=nhl

However, this is the bit that I found more interesting(it concerns Palffy):


Quote:

A return to the Kings seems out of the question.


``L.A. made their position pretty clear,'' Kraus said, adding that he hasn't heard from the Kings this month.

Reaper45 07-19-2004 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingsfan25
This is the article: http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp...07&hubName=nhl

However, this is the bit that I found more interesting(it concerns Palffy):

Their offer was there for almost a month. Long enough in my opinion, and now they've pulled their offer. Let Ziggy sign elsewhere now. . . :teach:

kingsfan25 07-19-2004 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reaper45
Their offer was there for almost a month. Long enough in my opinion, and now they've pulled their offer. Let Ziggy sign elsewhere now. . . :teach:

I agree.

I just found it interesting that Paul Kraus claimed that he has had no contact with the Kings in the month of July, when both Palffy and Taylor have stated otherwise.

Scottkmlps 07-19-2004 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingsfan25
I agree.

I just found it interesting that Paul Kraus claimed that he has had no contact with the Kings in the month of July, when both Palffy and Taylor have stated otherwise.

It's that whole village idiot thing.

kingsfan25 07-19-2004 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scottkmlps
It's that whole village idiot thing.

Yeah I know, but I just never really believed it until now. I mean, it was Mike Milbury that made the comment.

And when an idiot calls someone else an idiot, you just tend to discount it.

King of Calgary 07-19-2004 10:42 PM

Well if Zigmund is gone… how many are still happy we didn’t deal him when we had a chance? Not me. A second round pick in the next draft would have been nice and possibly something else??

kingsfan25 07-19-2004 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King of Calgary
Well if Zigmund is gone… how many are still happy we didn’t deal him when we had a chance? Not me. A second round pick in the next draft would have been nice and possibly something else??

When did we have a chance to deal him?

jfont 07-19-2004 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King of Calgary
Well if Zigmund is gone… how many are still happy we didn’t deal him when we had a chance? Not me. A second round pick in the next draft would have been nice and possibly something else??

i think he got injured before the trade deadline...he wasn't worth much injured so the kings gambled on him signing this offseason...

Reaper45 07-20-2004 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfont
i think he got injured before the trade deadline...he wasn't worth much injured so the kings gambled on him signing this offseason...

Even injured he could have fetched a 2nd rounder and maybe a mid level prospect at the least. I think... :dunno:

King of Calgary 07-20-2004 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfont
i think he got injured before the trade deadline...he wasn't worth much injured so the kings gambled on him signing this offseason...


True, kind of hard to trade someone that is injured. However, they could have dealt him before then (also before the trade deadline). Do you guys really think an extra 25-30 games would have helped the Kings? Maybe. Weren’t the Kings trying to sign him in the previous year? Why wait until the last minute (trade deadline), won’t teams make lowball offers knowing he’ll be UFA at season’s end?

jfont 07-20-2004 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King of Calgary
True, kind of hard to trade someone that is injured. However, they could have dealt him before then (also before the trade deadline). Do you guys really think an extra 25-30 games would have helped the Kings? Maybe. Weren’t the Kings trying to sign him in the previous year? Why wait until the last minute (trade deadline), won’t teams make lowball offers knowing he’ll be UFA at season’s end?

kinda hard to trade your best player when you're doing well at that time and right in the middle of a playoff hunt...kings weren't going to be sellers...

King of Calgary 07-20-2004 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfont
kinda hard to trade your best player when you're doing well at that time and right in the middle of a playoff hunt...kings weren't going to be sellers...


I agree and disagree. I can see your point (playoff hunt) but realistically there wasn’t many Kings fans that thought the Kings were going to do damage in the Playoffs with all the injuries… no Allison… no Deadmarsh etc. If the Kings had dealt him at the beginning of the season or before the season, the return would have been greater (IMO) than at the deadline. If players don’t sign you sell them.

jfont 07-20-2004 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King of Calgary
I agree and disagree. I can see your point (playoff hunt) but realistically there wasn’t many Kings fans that thought the Kings were going to do damage in the Playoffs with all the injuries… no Allison… no Deadmarsh etc. If the Kings had dealt him at the beginning of the season or before the season, the return would have been greater (IMO) than at the deadline. If players don’t sign you sell them.

what are you talking about? the signs were all over the place...

if we made the playoffs, we were going all the way there bud.... ;)

King of Calgary 07-20-2004 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfont
what are you talking about? the signs were all over the place...

if we made the playoffs, we were going all the way there bud.... ;)

What the hell was I thinking........jfont you da man :yo:

kingsfan25 07-20-2004 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King of Calgary
I agree and disagree. I can see your point (playoff hunt) but realistically there wasn’t many Kings fans that thought the Kings were going to do damage in the Playoffs with all the injuries… no Allison… no Deadmarsh etc. If the Kings had dealt him at the beginning of the season or before the season, the return would have been greater (IMO) than at the deadline. If players don’t sign you sell them.

First of all, when a team gets into the playoffs, anything can happen. And, regardless of whether that team makes it to the first round or the final round, it means a good deal more money than if they hadn't made it at all. Trading Ziggy before he got injured, while we were still in the hunt really wouldn't have made any sense. I don't believe that there were any indicators that he wasn't planning on re-signing, and you don't simply trade a player like Ziggy, who is integral to your team, just because his value at the time happens to be high. The Kings' ultimate goal last year was to make the playoffs and trading Palffy when they were still in a playoff postion, and realistically, still had a shot at the divison(possible) would not have been condusive to that goal.

King of Calgary 07-20-2004 01:44 PM

kingsfan25

I agree with—

“First of all, when a team gets into the playoffs, anything can happen. And, regardless of whether that team makes it to the first round or the final round, it means a good deal more money than if they hadn't made it at all.”

Not sure if I agree with the rest—

“Trading Ziggy before he got injured, while we were still in the hunt really wouldn't have made any sense. I don't believe that there were any indicators that he wasn't planning on re-signing, and you don't simply trade a player like Ziggy, who is integral to your team, just because his value at the time happens to be high. The Kings' ultimate goal last year was to make the playoffs and trading Palffy when they were still in a playoff postion, and realistically, still had a shot at the divison(possible) would not have been condusive to that goal.”

Losing Zigmund (valuable asset) for nothing doesn’t make much sense to me. Also, trading him away doesn’t mean the Kings don’t have a shot at the playoffs because like you said anything can happen, or is that only if Palffy is in the lineup or Playoff related?

I agree with the notion that if you are in the “Playoff hunt” you don’t really want to upset the team, but there are always exceptions and times where you have to. I didn’t get in to this with jfont and maybe you can tell me. Should we be talking about Playoffs after 5 regular season games? 10 games? 20 games? 30 games? There are so many teams that have a good first half of season and then completely crap out in the 2nd half.

The Kings goal should be trying to make the Playoffs very year, but hard decisions about the future must be made as well. Trading away young talent for someone who may help you get into the Playoffs and possibly past the first round (more money for Kings owners) may not be a wise decision. Not trading Palffy in hopes of making money one year may not be a wise decision either.

I’m not going to hold this over DT’s head if he gets nothing, because I don’t know what has been said. But as an observer I think there were indications of problems signing Zigmund this year.

The Kings as far as I knew were trying to sign Palffy the year before last year (well before that trade deadline) and I believe discussions of whether to trade him arose on these very boards at the deadline. I think most were against it then. Now if they were trying to sign Palffy all of that year + the off-season and after the first 10-20 games pass and no new contract… why wait? Fast-forward to now, a rumor/fact that DT offered Palffy less than what he made last year is indication of a problem. DT knows like very other GM knows, players don’t like taking pay cuts (insult to babies) especially ones that can go anywhere they want. DT took a gamble and it may still pay off, but it won’t be like the Blake deal. The best Taylor can do now is get Palffy signed. I hope he does, losing a valuable asset that could have been traded for something that could of helped us down the road would have been good. Who knows they could have gotten a player that could have helped us get into the playoffs last year because we didn’t too badly when Palffy went down. We were eliminated in what the last 10-15 games?

Skebo 07-20-2004 02:37 PM

I distinctly remember Palffy getting upset when he heard his name mentioned in trade rumors last year. I took that to mean that he wanted to stay in LA, but perhaps he didn't like the destinations that were being mentioned.

kingsfan25 07-20-2004 03:25 PM

Well, we're obviously at different sides of the issue on this one.

Quote:

Losing Zigmund (valuable asset) for nothing doesn’t make much sense to me. Also, trading him away doesn’t mean the Kings don’t have a shot at the playoffs because like you said anything can happen, or is that only if Palffy is in the lineup or Playoff related?
Granted, it'll be disappointing to lose Palffy for nothing, but it would make no sense to trade him halfway into the season. If it were at the trade deadline and we were out of a playoff position, it should be considered. But trading a player of Palffy's calibre for no other reason than he's there and you have the ability to would be illogical. Dumping an integral offensive player in the thick of a playoff race because the possibility exists that he may decide to leave would not be a constructive decision.

Quote:

I agree with the notion that if you are in the “Playoff hunt” you don’t really want to upset the team, but there are always exceptions and times where you have to. I didn’t get in to this with jfont and maybe you can tell me. Should we be talking about Playoffs after 5 regular season games? 10 games? 20 games? 30 games? There are so many teams that have a good first half of season and then completely crap out in the 2nd half.
Again, there is no case to be made for trading a player who has effectively carried your team on his back offensively while you are still in a playoff position. With regards to the playoff question, its true that there are many teams that tail off near the end of the season, but you can't simply trade away your best player because you might start to falter as the season goes on.

Quote:

The Kings goal should be trying to make the Playoffs very year, but hard decisions about the future must be made as well. Trading away young talent for someone who may help you get into the Playoffs and possibly past the first round (more money for Kings owners) may not be a wise decision. Not trading Palffy in hopes of making money one year may not be a wise decision either.
Again, I would argue that there wasn't any indication that Palffy was leaving, and that trading the team's franchise player for picks and prospects wouldn't have benefited the Kings to any great degree. Trades involving players of Palffy's calibre normally happen when that player is either too expensive for the team to justify holding onto, when the team is out of the playoffs, or when the team is lacking in prospects. At the point you are suggesting that Palffy should have been traded, none of these descriptions could be applied to the Kings.

Quote:

I hope he does, losing a valuable asset that could have been traded for something that could of helped us down the road would have been good. Who knows they could have gotten a player that could have helped us get into the playoffs last year because we didn’t too badly when Palffy went down. We were eliminated in what the last 10-15 games?
Yeah its disappointing, but trading him at that point would not have made any sense. Ziggy would have helped us down the road and I doubt that trading him would have brought us a player who could've proved to be of more value in getting us into the playoffs than Ziggy himself would have. As I have already stated, the Kings are fairly well-stocked on the farm and have a number of prospects ready to come into the NHL and make a difference. And since the Kings obviously are not going into rebuilding mode, and certainly weren't when Ziggy would still have been deemed a tradebale commodity, trading him away would not have been condusive to to their goal of being a competitive team.

guzmania 07-20-2004 03:44 PM

Hindsight is 20/20.

People would've freaked out totally if in January the Kings traded Palffy. I know if I was a season ticket owner and that happened I be real pissed. Can you imagine the tirades about the Kings being too cheap to sign their best player. They tried hard to get it done and it hasn't happened yet and it probably won't happen. How could we have known?

Mxpunk 07-20-2004 03:47 PM

Does anyone think the Kings' decision to not re-sign Modry and Stumpel may have irked Palffy and is influencing his decision not to re-sign? Werent Palffy & Stump best friends when Stumpel returned here, and I believe I read that Palffy attended his wedding....

King of Calgary 07-20-2004 06:41 PM

kingsfan25

Well, we're obviously at different sides of the issue on this one.

No doubt about it.

Granted, it'll be disappointing to lose Palffy for nothing, but it would make no sense to trade him halfway into the season. If it were at the trade deadline and we were out of a playoff position, it should be considered. But trading a player of Palffy's calibre for no other reason than he's there and you have the ability to would be illogical. Dumping a player as integral as Palffy in the thick of a playoff race because the possibility exists that he may decide to leave would not be a constructive decision.

Who said anything about trading him halfway through the season? If he were healthy that would have been all right anyway, it all depends. I personally think they should have moved him before the season started. At the very least a few games into the season, but that is risky due to injury, as we all know. I said trade him because you couldn’t sign him in the off-season, not for no other reason. Once again, 35 games into the season you aren’t really in the “Playoff hunt”. How many teams are in the Playoff hunt after 35 games? 25? I’m not a guy who is talking about the playoff picture after 30 games, but you can be as optimistic as you want.

Again, there is no case to be made for trading a player who has effectively carried your team on his back offensively while you are still in a playoff position. WIth regards to the playoff question, its true that there are many teams that tale off near the end of the season, but you can't simply trade away your best player because the possibility exists that you may tail off as the season goes on.

Once again, the playoff position is irrelevant… not enough games were played AND none if you deal him before the season started. As for Palffy carrying the team offensively, that is an overstatement as well. Palffy plays with four other players (not including goaltender… team game) who work hard and get him the puck so he can do his thing offensively. They also carry more of the defensive load and the physical part of the game. Zigmund is the best offensive talent on the Kings, but lets not get too carried away. The Kings can survive without him when he’s gone. Once again, WHO said trade away your best player just because the possibility exists that you may tail off? I basically said, trade him because he isn’t signed (before season started) and don’t take the chance of getting nothing for him. Injuries happen and with Palffy it is almost a certainty.

Again, I would argue that there wasn't an indication that Palffy was leaving, and that trading the team's franchise player for picks and prospects wouldn't have benefited the Kings to any great degree. Just because he has a large salary does not mean that the Kings should have chosen to dump him, as he has proved his value on the ice limitless times. Trades involving players of Palffy's calibre normally happen when that player is either too expensive for the team to justify holding onto, when the team is out of the playoffs, or when the team is lacking in prospects. At the point you are suggesting that Palffy should have been traded, none of these descriptions could be applied to the Kings.

Why isn’t Palffy all ready signed if he “proved” his value? DT thinks otherwise or he’d be signed. Nobody said anything about dumping him just because of his large salary. Dump him because you can’t sign him and you can get something of value for him. Don’t just love the player…love the team, you won’t be disappointed as much. The Kings are forever; Palffy is only good for… well I don’t know.

Skebo posted something that would make me believe otherwise. If DT is listening to offers, can’t this be an indication that Palffy was leaving? Not being able to sign him last year and into the off-season is not an indication? Do you think it helps that DT offered him less than what he was currently making? You said picks and prospects wouldn’t have benefited the Kings to any great degree. How do you know this, are you talking just short-term or long-term? You say none of these descriptions can be applied to the Kings ???Unreal, thanks for your input and next time I’ll check with you on what is appropriate. As for the “only time” you can trade Palffy … not some hardened rules I go by.

Yeah its disappointing, but trading him at that point would not have made any sense. Ziggy would have helped us down the road and I doubt that trading him would have brought us a player who could've proved to be of more value in getting us into the playoffs than Ziggy himself would have. As I have already stated, the Kings are fairly well-stocked on the farm and have a number of prospects ready to come into the NHL and make a difference. And since the Kings obviously are not going into rebuilding mode, and certainly weren't when Ziggy would still have been deemed a tradebale commodity, trading him away would not have been condusive to to their goal of being a competitive team.

Did the Blake deal disappoint you (franchise defenseman)? Maybe the end result? (disappointed me), but I wouldn't fault DT for that. “Rebuilding mode” what does that mean exactly? Aren’t the Kings and every other team always in “rebuild mode”? Who are the players that are going to replace Allison and Deadmarsh point totals? Next year, or when the NHL starts up again, the Kings could be decimated by more injuries (Palffy) and will we still have enough prospects then? Oh, will go in “rebuild mode” because were not in rebuild mode now. Players are aging and contracts come up, injuries, so in essence we are always rebuilding and looking towards the future by making decisions accordingly. Maybe you just have a different meaning… “rebuild mode” … That’s fine

NOT trading Palffy this year and getting NOTHING in return is not conducive of a being a competitive team (future).

According HF, we can improve goaltending prospects, no? I hope Gleason and Grebeshkov become solid, but we could use a few more prospects there. You make assumption that the prospects we do have now will be good next year or whenever, which I hope for as well. You make it sound the Kings can’t handle anymore prospects…

I get the feeling you didn’t really read what I wrote, because you say a lot things that I didn’t say. You say the Kings had no opportunity to deal Palffy……but they did. You got on the Playoff bandwagon 10, 20, 30 games in the season…….. yikes, especially with Allison and Deadmarsh not in the lineup. I cheer for the team every year and hope for the best, but I try to be a little realistic in the Kings chances. You say there were no indications Palffy wouldn’t sign. That can be argued as well. Maybe you don’t want to believe it.

King of Calgary 07-20-2004 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guzmaniac
Hindsight is 20/20.

People would've freaked out totally if in January the Kings traded Palffy. I know if I was a season ticket owner and that happened I be real pissed. Can you imagine the tirades about the Kings being too cheap to sign their best player. They tried hard to get it done and it hasn't happened yet and it probably won't happen. How could we have known?

A fair response to my original post.

“Well if Zigmund is gone… how many are still happy we didn’t deal him when we had a chance? Not me. A second round pick in the next draft would have been nice and possibly something else??”

However, I had a feeling he was going to be a problem to sign (happens too much), therefore it wouldn’t have pissed me off if the traded him. It actually pisses me off more if they get nothing now, but I can live with it. Like you said, hindsight is 20/20.

GKJ 07-20-2004 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reaper45
Even injured he could have fetched a 2nd rounder and maybe a mid level prospect at the least. I think... :dunno:


No way, you can't trade damaged goods at an optimum price like that.

kingsfan25 07-20-2004 07:21 PM

Well, we can go on analyzing each other's posts forever, but its not getting us anywhere. Basically, you're saying that we should have traded Palffy before the season began or early into the season, rather than risk letting him go to free agency; that argument is contingent on DT having some indication that he wouldn't be able to sign him after the season.

Personally, I don't think there would have been much, if any, justification to trade him at that time. Based on your previous posts, I assumed that you were stipulating that the Kings should have traded Ziggy while the Kings were in the race. Apparently, that is not the case. However, even if it is not, I still do not believe that the Kings would have had any reason to trade him. You have to figure that the Kings expected Allison and Deadmarsh to come back at some point, giving them a very high-powered offense, of which they would undoubtedly expect Palffy to be a main cog. And who knows, if things had worked out that way, maybe Palffy would be signed right now, along with with the other 2/3 of the LAPD line.

What it boils down to is that I believe that the Kings had plans for Palffy to be apart of this team for the long-term and thought that he would re-sign. However, they did not foresee the injury situation repeating itself, and thus find themselves in the current situation. So, looking back, would the Kings have benefited from trading Palffy prior to his injury? Maybe. However, I don't think that they had any reason to trade him in the window of oppurtunity that you speak of.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:44 PM.

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.