View Single Post
Old
03-06-2013, 01:12 PM
  #32
danaluvsthekings
Registered User
 
danaluvsthekings's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 4,137
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chacal667 View Post
I mean you should don't care about your team needs, if you can trade some 4th liner guys for a number 1 center you shut your mouth and you do it. DD is only paid 1m, he probably have the best ratio points/money in the league.

You can always trade him after.
The problem with that is, you are opening holes at positions to acquire a player that the Kings currently do not need. It's not that Desharnais is a bad player, he's not what the Kings need. He's not better than Kopitar and he might not have the chemistry that Carter and Richards have together. Which would make him a 3rd line center in LA. Right now, things are working pretty well for LA, 9-2 in the last 11, one loss was a stinker in Van where they didn't play well, the other was a 3-2 loss to Chicago. They started slow but have been playing much better lately. They scored 4 goals in each of the 3rd periods the last 2 nights.

So you're suggesting that a team playing well opens up a hole on the 4th line, move another center to wing, when they've already got Carter, Lewis, King playing wing and not center, plus Richardson as a healthy scratch, and Nolan, who was suggested being traded to Montreal, also can play center. Look at the Kings roster. 9 of the 13 forwards are listed at center. There are very very few centers in the league where the Kings would look at them and say, "We need to add that guy". Mike Richards is the smallest Kings forward at 5'11. They play a big, physical game, and a 5'7" center is not going to fit their system. Jeff Carter has 15 goals playing on Richards wing and Richards is heating up right now goal wise too. They're not going to break that up.

Yes, in theory the Kings could trade for Desharnais and then turn around and trade him in the future to fill the other holes that they opened by trading for him in the first place, but logically why would a team do that? If you are Dean Lombardi and loved the way your defense rolled in the playoffs last year, with an offensive defenseman matched up with a more physical stay at home guy, plus a physical 4th line that can chip in offensively, why change it? If you know what you have works, why change it, and then need to change it again in the future for guys that might not work out for your team?

danaluvsthekings is offline   Reply With Quote