View Single Post
Old
06-18-2009, 08:08 PM
  #178
JDM
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 9,968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am The Mush View Post
I don't know if you are clever and trying to spin things, or your reading comprehension is really this sketchy. I am not calling you ignorant for agreeing with me. I am calling you ignorant for posting a quote of mine that is in agreement with some of the sentiments you express, then commenting "I am blown away by the ignorance of the few.". It's a head scratcher.
You'll have to remind me what exactly I quoted from you? The only quote I had in my OP was "with that many untouchables you'd think they won the cup!", and I didn't put the typical forum quotes on it either, nor did I specify who said it, because I wasn't sure, I just remembered reading it and it seemed to be a sentiment a few expressed. So please, tell me what I quoted you on. Seeing as that statement is not something I agree with, I'm not sure what you are talking about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by I am The Mush View Post
They're two very different sized holes.
A fair point. However, the gap between the quality of player we could sub in for Simmonds is greater than I believe the gap between Stoll and, say for example Staal is.


Quote:
Originally Posted by I am The Mush View Post
Right, we are eye to eye here. My point was that in most of my dealings with kings fans, they not only don't want to trade away players they need, they don't want to trade away much of anything.
Well, that's true in some cases. For a player we don't see as a fit for the team, regardless of what 'fair' value may be, we aren't going to give up young up and coming players we love. I think most Kings fans came to a consensus as fair value for say Vinny or Heatley. On the Kings boards, most feel that JJ, 5th and Teubert or Moller is good for Heatley. That's not chump change. If a team doesn't want the 5th, or JJ, or Teubert or Moller, we are less reluctant to make a deal because while we are willing to part with some promising players and picks such as those, we can't afford to part with Brown, Doughty, Kopitar and for goalie problem reasons that go back to what seems like the beginning of the franchise, Quick or Bernier. Simmonds played himself on to that list this season. If you saw him on your team for 82 games my guess is you wouldn't give him up lightly either.


Quote:
Originally Posted by I am The Mush View Post
That is exactly what it was. One good jab deserves another.
Again, wasn't originally jabbing at you specifically.


Quote:
Originally Posted by I am The Mush View Post
"a young group of kids learning to be professional athletes together"......

That's cute, if you're trying to write a screenplay. You're trying to win hockey game I would assume. I'm not buying either that "identity" is crucial to winning, or the fragility of said identity (at least not with decent coaching).
OK, that was pretty funny. Got a chuckle. However, while it sounds corny, those who have followed the Kings as closely as I have for as long (many even longer) can tell you that for reasons as broad as the attitude of the city of LA as a whole to as narrow as the whims and fluctuations of GM's without a real plan or backing from ownership to build a true winner, the LA Kings have long lacked an identity, both in terms of style of play and pride to play here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by I am The Mush View Post
I never took offense to that. I disagreed that that level of roster turnover was the enemy of success, but disagreement doesn't equate to taking offense (in my mind at least).
Chalk it up to the hard to deny but natural application of tone to black and white text.


Quote:
Originally Posted by I am The Mush View Post
The list was more a mockery of the outlook of Kings fans in general than you specifically. I did comment that Backstrom would cost more than you would ever want to give up, mostly to cite him as an example of a legit untouchable, and highlight the unwillingness of most Kings fans to part with assets to acquire players. The tone of that part of my post was oppositional but not contradictory. I was definitely not saying........"no idiot, the sky is blue".
Fair enough. Since Backstrom doesn't fall in to the territory of big salary cap implications one way or another, you are right that the Kings won't be willing to part with what Washington would demand. No big deal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by I am The Mush View Post
Incorrect, you quoted me. Keep up.
Please, point this out to me specifically.

JDM is offline   Reply With Quote