View Single Post
11-28-2011, 07:33 PM
Buddy The Elf
Buddy The Elf's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Belmont Shore
Country: United States
Posts: 10,552
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Herby View Post
The first comment was directed at a few of my friends on this board who were making fun of Chicago the summer after they won the Cup saying they had mortgaged their future for a championship, I strongly disagreed by saying any team that still has Toews, Kane, Hossa, Sharp, Keith, Seabrook and Bolland are still a seriously good team.

I have long been an advocate of exciting, offensive style hockey like Chicago plays. I think it's good for the game and the best way to win, so I am happy they are doing well.

As for your second comment, I will tell you what I would have done, but I'm sure as usual you will call me a Monday morning QB. But here goes.

- I would have drafted more than one offensively talented forward with my seven first round picks. Out of those picks we took one offensively talented forward, four defenseman, a goalie and one projected bottom line player, and we are wondering why we can't score goals?

- If all I could get for Lubomir Visnovsky was a 3rd line center and #5/6 d-man, I would not have made the move.

- I would have signed Marian Gaborik to the 5 years he wanted, he is EXACTLY the kind of player we desperately needed then and desperately need now (A pure goal-scorer on Kopitar's wing). This franchise has cheated Kopitar his entire career by never getting him that kind of player, this was their chance and they blew it.

- I never would have touched Ryan Smyth. I realize they were desperate, but it was a short sighted move

I think point one and point three at the biggest blunders, and why we are where we are at as far as lack goal-scoring.
Hey no mention of a different coach? Something must be wrong there.

At any rate, I don' think the Visnovsky move was 100% Lombardi's decision but assuming it was, I don't think it was a horrible trade. Visnovsky always has and continues to struggle to be healthy. So while the Oilers got the better player, in the end the Kings have benefited from Stoll/Greene. I know you hate both but I don't agree that they are as bad as you say. But they are depth players for sure. I would say I'm neutral on that issue. I don't think it was the best move or his worst.

The draft picks comment is a fair assesment. I think DL's logic is that blue chip defense can get you blue chip offense. But at the end of the day, balance is needed and the organization is defense heavy at this point. Which isn't a bad thing but it is when the organization does need more offensive depth. It also doesn't help when two of your top prospects bolt for Europe.

Ryan Smyth was a no brainer in my eyes so I'll disagree with you completely on that. They gave up Quincey who looks like he has regained form again but he cost the Kings zero to acquire and like i just said, the Kings have a plethora of defensive prospects. That was not a big loss. Ryan Smyth did help eleveate Kopitar's game and I think even he would tell you that.

The Gaborik thing was a huge risk. He still hasn't played an 82 game season but I did lobby for him that summer. I think the Kings could've managed his salary so I guess I'll agree with you there but it is much easier to say that now than the summer he was available.

Anyway, I wasn't really looking to dwell on the past. I'm kinda interested in what people feel the direction the organization needs to go. Like who replaces TM/DL? What will they bring to the table that will get the Kings to that place? Those are very difficult questions and I think it is easy for all of us to sit here and say the results are poor or underwhelming. I think most agree. The problem is how do you turn that around? That is no simple answer and I always get the impression that some of you guys think it is so simple when every team in the league struggles with similar issues quite regularly with few exceptions.

I don't want to see the Kings lose but I also believe the team is much better than the way they are playing regardless who is coaching. LIke I said in the other thread, the Kings were 9th in scoring 2 seasons ago. Is is really that farfetched to believe that Kings could land somewhere between where they are now adn where they were then, with what most would consider a much better roster? I personlly don't think it is that big of a stretch.

Buddy The Elf is offline