Why do they get so much better...
View Single Post
04-30-2011, 08:01 AM
Join Date: Dec 2003
Basically, what should change to make sure we aren't wasting our prospect pool? We keep talking about our future while giving almost none of it a decent chance. I like that we let players develop but, I think we've got to take a few more risks.
I am personally starting to feel like our prospects don't get enough of a chance. I like Smyth, for instance, but what if somebody had stepped up and been better than Smyth. We'd be able to lose 6mil off the cap and a good prospect would have gotten some good ice time.
I know people are a bit hesitant because there's a theme in HF that every prospect is better than any regular NHLer and what not but, still, I feel like a lot weren't given a chance. Schenn should have been called up when Stoll got suspended, for instance. Clifford should have been given a chance to play with some decent skill. Holloway should really have been given some kind of shot at the NHL.
The Kings had 4 guys that played the majority of the year in Manchester in 09-10, and 1 who came right from junior hockey, make and contribute to the team this year. A year that the Kings were expected to make the playoffs. How is that not a chance? A couple more guys made the team in 09-10. The year before that it was Doughty, Quick, Simmonds, and even Moller made the team out of camp that year. The Kings seem to have at least a couple young players make the team every year.
So, should the Kings risk more and try to give the prospies more of a chance? It might mean a few dropped games but, we really should be able to have somebody in the running for the calder next year.
Maybe should isn't the right word there. That trophy goes to the rookie of the year, meaning guys that have no proven track record, that have never played an NHL game, or at least very few games, prior to that season. Should is a very strong word.
Don't remember anyone saying Purcell was great.
There's a post on the NHL General forum about Purcell. If you watch him he's great
But - he had 51 points, and how many did Justin Williams have? 57, right? Not much more.
Which is why I asked the question of people complaining about our current wingers. It was in the context of the original post. More of a sarcastic question anyway, since I didn't think great was the right word to use.
Is Purcell the player that Williams is? Probably not. Is he a damn sight better than the Kings ever thought he was? Absolutely, when you consider Purcell was traded for the great Jeff Halpern.
As was pointed out, Lombardi projected Purcell to be a top 2 RW. He wasn't showing that on the ice for the Kings(for many reasons), and, probably more importantly, had Williams, Brown, and Simmonds ahead of him. Purcell ended up with little trade value, again, for many reasons. He went to a team that missed the playoffs, and was just looking for youth. He wasn't counted on to do anything going into the season, and has paid off nicely for the Lightning. Hats off.
The Kings were quite healthy, but you have to figure that we're going to lose someone for a big chunk of the season next year.
Like Mitchell and Martinez this year.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by KingsFan7824