HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Los Angeles Kings
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

What Exactly is a REBUILD?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-04-2009, 01:43 PM
  #51
JDM
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 9,968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruel11 View Post

JDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2009, 01:50 PM
  #52
HeadInjury
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 955
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Ron View Post
It is easy to say stay the course when it is someone elses money flipping the bill. AEG does not strike me as the type of ownership that will spend whatever it takes to win....they have always been about the bottom line.....losing income while increasing the payroll does not sound like a great business move.
This isn't the NBA, where Sterling used to make a profit simply from his share of the league's TV contract and didn't have to field a competitive team. Other than a handful of teams, in the NHL you have to win in order to make money.

HeadInjury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2009, 02:02 PM
  #53
jimmy1100
Registered User
 
jimmy1100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seattle
Country: United States
Posts: 1,816
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadInjury View Post
A rebuild is when a decision is made to forego the possibility of getting better in the short term for the possibility of getting better in the long term. Typically, a team realizes it isn't going to get to the promised land and they should start over. You trade away your valuable players that aren't in your long term plans for picks and youngsters. You shy away from signings that will only improve your team enough to miss out on top draft picks. You try to build a youthful core so the team improves as they mature.

The Kings were never in a rebuild until DL came on board. It started when he traded Demitra at the draft, followed by Gleason, Belanger, Avery, Conroy, Norstrom and Sopel. Before then, most trades of our better players were for salary reasons (e.g., Blake, Schneider) and not driven by the desire to improve the team.

The key to the rebuild is remaining patient.

AMEN!!! Read and enjoy ladies....

You want to know what happens when you do the quick rebuild? Head over to the Flyers board and check out the situation they are in....

Went from bottom 3 to top 8 in one year; made playoffs two years in a row after finishing in bottom 3; and now they have nothing to show for it except a huge salary cap fiasco...

jimmy1100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2009, 02:56 PM
  #54
Primakov!
Registered User
 
Primakov!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Yesteryear
Posts: 1,421
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmy1100 View Post
You want to know what happens when you do the quick rebuild? Head over to the Flyers board and check out the situation they are in....

Went from bottom 3 to top 8 in one year; made playoffs two years in a row after finishing in bottom 3; and now they have nothing to show for it except a huge salary cap fiasco...
Are they really an example of a "rebuild" though?

They experienced a dip in point totals for a single year (107 points, 101 points, 101 points, 56 points, 95 points, and 99 points) and after a bit of shuffling in the roster they're right back to where they were before.

By all means correct me if I'm wrong, but if the foundation for a 100 point team was already in place wouldn't calling that a rebuilding effort be giving them too much credit?

Primakov! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2009, 05:52 PM
  #55
Defgarden
Registered User
 
Defgarden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Loma Linda, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,827
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Primakov! View Post
Are they really an example of a "rebuild" though?

They experienced a dip in point totals for a single year (107 points, 101 points, 101 points, 56 points, 95 points, and 99 points) and after a bit of shuffling in the roster they're right back to where they were before.

By all means correct me if I'm wrong, but if the foundation for a 100 point team was already in place wouldn't calling that a rebuilding effort be giving them too much credit?
Agreed. Anomoly. Could you imagine Philly with Kane though? I mean, I'm sure JVR will be a good player, and probably would have had a better opportunity to play on a crappier team, but Kane is talent. But the team is good and the fans shouldn't have too much to grumble about.

Defgarden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2009, 06:27 PM
  #56
Captain Ron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Gardnerville, NV
Country: United States
Posts: 17,409
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
But if I pay someone to tear down a hockey organization and rebuild it from the ground up all over again, I certainly don't expect it to be finished in 3 1/2 years.
Tear down a hockey organization?

Last time I checked Kopitar, Brown, Frolov and Quick were already part of the organization when Dean was hired......if he did not have them in the fold for the last 3 seasons I guarantee that the Kings would have finished dead last three years in a row. Then consider without players like Demitra, Norstrom, Cammalleri, Belanger, Gleason and Sopel...... Dean would not have had the necessary assets to acquire players like Williams, Moller, Teubert, Johnson and Simmonds.

Dean started with a pretty good foundation when he began with the Kings....better than what many bottom feeding teams had. Considering he has had 3 years to improve on that foundation and has taken them from a team finishing 28th overall to finishing 29th overall and then improving to 26th overall......Not something to boast about.

Captain Ron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2009, 06:28 PM
  #57
FrozenRoyalty
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 1,252
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDM View Post
You don't want to be pro-active?

Why can't people see a middle ground between full draft rebuild and the DT era?

So your plan is to just wait and see? How long do you wait? What's plan B? Any insurance in there?

After how many losing seasons/missing the playoffs do you become pro-active?

I know you believe in the team, and to an extent I do believe highly in the abilities of the current squad. But they need help, and the missing piece isn't a 3rd liner.
Because the "half-assed" rebuild is a major reason the Kings have stunk for what...40+ years now?

FrozenRoyalty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2009, 06:39 PM
  #58
JDM
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 9,968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrozenRoyalty View Post
Because the "half-assed" rebuild is a major reason the Kings have stunk for what...40+ years now?
I don't think it's half-assing a rebuild to make one big trade in which you get some proven talent for prospect depth.

The Kings have stunk, but they've also been good before, just never Cup material. Sucking constantly hasn't done squat for Atlanta.

I understand and embrace the idea of patience and all that, but this off-season seems like such a perfect melting point to me for all the stars to align.

Maybe I'm just anxious or hopeful. I've been preaching patience, but with moves like the Williams trade, the overall improvement in team D, the emergence of Doughty and Quick, while I don't think its time for the Kings to push for a cup, I do think its time to give them that playoff insurance player.

I'll repeat, one trade using SOME prospect depth after 3 years of full bore rebuild does not equate to 40 years of not planning properly for the future.

JDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2009, 06:42 PM
  #59
JDM
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 9,968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Ron View Post
Last time I checked Kopitar, Brown, Frolov and Quick were already part of the organization when Dean was hired......if he did not have them in the fold for the last 3 seasons I guarantee that the Kings would have finished dead last three years in a row.
Maybe he should have traded Kopitar, Brown, Frolov and Quick and finished last. Then we'd have Kane, Stamkos and Tavares!

JDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2009, 07:17 PM
  #60
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,622
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Ron View Post
Tear down a hockey organization?

Last time I checked Kopitar, Brown, Frolov and Quick were already part of the organization when Dean was hired......if he did not have them in the fold for the last 3 seasons I guarantee that the Kings would have finished dead last three years in a row. Then consider without players like Demitra, Norstrom, Cammalleri, Belanger, Gleason and Sopel...... Dean would not have had the necessary assets to acquire players like Williams, Moller, Teubert, Johnson and Simmonds.

Dean started with a pretty good foundation when he began with the Kings....better than what many bottom feeding teams had. Considering he has had 3 years to improve on that foundation and has taken them from a team finishing 28th overall to finishing 29th overall and then improving to 26th overall......Not something to boast about.
Yes, as in evaluate and fire all scouts, front office personnel, and players that don't fit into your vision and hire people to replace them.

There were some assets available when he started, but an expansion team gets assets to get started as well. If you look at all of the "assets" you listed there wasn't a single one that was a ready to use goaltender or top defenseman.

So, yes he took it apart and built it from the foundation up.

KINGS17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2009, 07:29 PM
  #61
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,622
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDM View Post
I don't think it's half-assing a rebuild to make one big trade in which you get some proven talent for prospect depth.

The Kings have stunk, but they've also been good before, just never Cup material. Sucking constantly hasn't done squat for Atlanta.

I understand and embrace the idea of patience and all that, but this off-season seems like such a perfect melting point to me for all the stars to align.

Maybe I'm just anxious or hopeful. I've been preaching patience, but with moves like the Williams trade, the overall improvement in team D, the emergence of Doughty and Quick, while I don't think its time for the Kings to push for a cup, I do think its time to give them that playoff insurance player.

I'll repeat, one trade using SOME prospect depth after 3 years of full bore rebuild does not equate to 40 years of not planning properly for the future.
If Lecavalier isn't for a push for a Stanley Cup, what's the point in bringing him on board?

Playoff insurance can be obtained for a lot less than the cost of Vincent Lecavalier, and by cost I mean not only the cap space, but the assets given up to get him. Assets that I might add, might be better used at a later date after this group gets a little playoff experience and has a legitimate shot at making a run.

Maybe I'm overestimating what it is going to take to get Lecavalier in a trade, but if it's Johnson, Stoll, and the #5 overall, that's too much.

KINGS17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2009, 08:01 PM
  #62
JDM
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 9,968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
If Lecavalier isn't for a push for a Stanley Cup, what's the point in bringing him on board?

Playoff insurance can be obtained for a lot less than the cost of Vincent Lecavalier, and by cost I mean not only the cap space, but the assets given up to get him. Assets that I might add, might be better used at a later date after this group gets a little playoff experience and has a legitimate shot at making a run.

Maybe I'm overestimating what it is going to take to get Lecavalier in a trade, but if it's Johnson, Stoll, and the #5 overall, that's too much.
Yeah I see that contradiction. I will say that if Lecavelier were signed for 3 years, that would be true, but the fact that he has such a long contract, and I personally think he will play at an elite level for another 4 or 5 years, he fits into both categories as being a push for playoffs now as well as being critical in cup contention in 3 years. In fact, he helps along all of that in several ways.

You know, the more I think about it, the more I think Lombardi would overpay (I don't want him to overpay) a little to get Vinny. Considering all the comments he has made about Kopitar not having a mentor to help bring him along, the more I see DL thinking Vinny could be that guy.

While its a move I like in essense, DL will find some way to make it but still have it leave a sour taste in my mouth

JDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2009, 08:07 PM
  #63
jimmy1100
Registered User
 
jimmy1100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seattle
Country: United States
Posts: 1,816
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Primakov! View Post
Are they really an example of a "rebuild" though?

They experienced a dip in point totals for a single year (107 points, 101 points, 101 points, 56 points, 95 points, and 99 points) and after a bit of shuffling in the roster they're right back to where they were before.

By all means correct me if I'm wrong, but if the foundation for a 100 point team was already in place wouldn't calling that a rebuilding effort be giving them too much credit?
While I'll admit that 'rebuild' isn't the best term for the specific situation, I'm sure you can see my point because of how much turnover there was. They COMPLETELY overhauled that team in one offseason.

Acquisitions:

Briere, Upshall, Parent, Coburn, Biron, Timonen, Hartnell, Lupul and Smith

And now they're in trouble because of the cap implications of Timonen, Lupul, Hartnell & Briere.

I guess my point was that the rash of moves they made to get back into the playoffs so quickly is affecting them negatively now.

jimmy1100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2009, 08:20 PM
  #64
JDM
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 9,968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmy1100 View Post
While I'll admit that 'rebuild' isn't the best term for the specific situation, I'm sure you can see my point because of how much turnover there was. They COMPLETELY overhauled that team in one offseason.

Acquisitions:

Briere, Upshall, Parent, Coburn, Biron, Timonen, Hartnell, Lupul and Smith

And now they're in trouble because of the cap implications of Timonen, Lupul, Hartnell & Briere.

I guess my point was that the rash of moves they made to get back into the playoffs so quickly is affecting them negatively now.
I don't think it is fair to say it is negatively affecting them until we see how they perform next year.

One of the realities of the cap world seems to be that contending teams need to constantly manuever around it.

Regardless of the moves the Kings make, they will eventually have cap concerns. There will always be tough decisions to make when you are icing a team that is competative and stacked with talent. Philly is a horrible example.

Ottawa would be a good example. There is a team that has hung on too long and should have gone full rebuild a year or two ago. Suck and cap concerns. Those are the examples you should cite to make the point I think you are making.

JDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2009, 08:56 PM
  #65
kingsfan28
Viva Los Cucarachas!
 
kingsfan28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Earth
Country: United States
Posts: 11,988
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Ron View Post
Tear down a hockey organization?

Last time I checked Kopitar, Brown, Frolov and Quick were already part of the organization when Dean was hired......if he did not have them in the fold for the last 3 seasons I guarantee that the Kings would have finished dead last three years in a row. Then consider without players like Demitra, Norstrom, Cammalleri, Belanger, Gleason and Sopel...... Dean would not have had the necessary assets to acquire players like Williams, Moller, Teubert, Johnson and Simmonds.

Dean started with a pretty good foundation when he began with the Kings....better than what many bottom feeding teams had. Considering he has had 3 years to improve on that foundation and has taken them from a team finishing 28th overall to finishing 29th overall and then improving to 26th overall......Not something to boast about.
The foundation was held together with duck tape and zip ties. Who was our top prospect aside from Kopitar (and even he was suspect because nobody knew a lot about him when drafted)? Tambellini and Grebeshkov were traded in a panic move by Taylor to save his job. Quick was more of a "throw a dart at the goalie draft board" like all the other drafts, so that really only leaves Brown, Frolov, Lubo, Cammi and maybe Gleason. How about the defensive prospects?Petiot? Ziska?

And don't forget the meltdown that lead to us missing the playoffs and trying to figure out why everything went to crap. Hardly a solid foundation to start from on day 1.

kingsfan28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2009, 10:09 PM
  #66
Captain Ron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Gardnerville, NV
Country: United States
Posts: 17,409
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsfan28 View Post
The foundation was held together with duck tape and zip ties. Who was our top prospect aside from Kopitar (and even he was suspect because nobody knew a lot about him when drafted)? Tambellini and Grebeshkov were traded in a panic move by Taylor to save his job. Quick was more of a "throw a dart at the goalie draft board" like all the other drafts, so that really only leaves Brown, Frolov, Lubo, Cammi and maybe Gleason. How about the defensive prospects?Petiot? Ziska?

And don't forget the meltdown that lead to us missing the playoffs and trying to figure out why everything went to crap. Hardly a solid foundation to start from on day 1.
I agree about the defensive prospects....Taylor did not have luck drafting defense....but the Kings had one of the best young set of forwards Cammi, Brown and Frolov. And I disagree about Kopitar being "suspect"....he was a steal of the draft......people were saying that as soon as he dropped to the Kings. He was ranked in the top 8 that year. Tukonen was also considered a good prospect...but he did not turn out....but who is to say that guys like Lewis, Hickey or Bernier will not suffer a similar fate?

As for the meltdown....it does not take a genius to figure out what happened with the Kings. They were still trying to recover from losing their top players just a few years before (Allison, Deadmarsh and Palffy). Taylor was trying to improve through the draft (getting players like Brown, Boyle and Kopitar) and attract high profile free agents (Conroy and Demitra) at the same time. He was not given the option of allowing the team to sink to the bottom of the standings. If he was his life would have been a lot easier. It was definitely not the ideal situation to come into (when you consider the team finished 20th in the league in 2005-06), but but it was not like an expansion team (like Kings17 claimed)....there were plenty of teams in the league who were worse off than the Kings.

Captain Ron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2009, 01:53 PM
  #67
butthead666
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 601
vCash: 500
Vinnie is as close to a sure thing as you are going to get if he his trade for. He is the best player available including free agents. He is not perfect but he is the best option available unless Nash rumors are true. I would try to acquire him without giving up #5 draft pick and if it it was needed to get the deal done so be it. You could draft in the top five for the next 3 years and still not get a player as good as VL. VL is probably top goal scoring center in the league and guys like him are not available every day and he will probably be just as good as he is now for the next 5-6 years. Kings have a glut of defensive prospects so giving up a couple will not kill them nor their future. Vinnie will also make players around him better and send a message to the rest of the league that L.A. means business.

butthead666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2009, 02:30 PM
  #68
null33
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,091
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Ron View Post
As for the meltdown....it does not take a genius to figure out what happened with the Kings. They were still trying to recover from losing their top players just a few years before (Allison, Deadmarsh and Palffy). Taylor was trying to improve through the draft (getting players like Brown, Boyle and Kopitar) and attract high profile free agents (Conroy and Demitra) at the same time. He was not given the option of allowing the team to sink to the bottom of the standings. If he was his life would have been a lot easier. It was definitely not the ideal situation to come into (when you consider the team finished 20th in the league in 2005-06), but but it was not like an expansion team (like Kings17 claimed)....there were plenty of teams in the league who were worse off than the Kings.
Amen brother. Astounding that the career-ending injuries to Allison, Deadmarsh, and Palffy are so infrequently noted when we're discussing the Taylor era. Those three, in addition to being the NHL club's top scoring line, were Taylor's "bridge players" who would have carried the team while frolov, brown, kopitar matured into the players they are now.

No team in the league (except maybe the Red Wings) could have survived such a catastrophic loss.

That said, it's obvious there wasn't much in the pipeline, especially on the blueline, when Lombardi arrived, though it appears now that Team Taylor had begun to address the org's hole in goal (Quick was a Taylor pick, and Bernier may as well have been).

null33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2009, 02:50 PM
  #69
butthead666
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 601
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lars H View Post
Amen brother. Astounding that the career-ending injuries to Allison, Deadmarsh, and Palffy are so infrequently noted when we're discussing the Taylor era. Those three, in addition to being the NHL club's top scoring line, were Taylor's "bridge players" who would have carried the team while frolov, brown, kopitar matured into the players they are now.

No team in the league (except maybe the Red Wings) could have survived such a catastrophic loss.

That said, it's obvious there wasn't much in the pipeline, especially on the blueline, when Lombardi arrived, though it appears now that Team Taylor had begun to address the org's hole in goal (Quick was a Taylor pick, and Bernier may as well have been).
Taylor did draft a couple of decent defensive prospects but he did not or was not able to keep them long enough to develop because he had to make the playoffs to keep his job. Comparing DL era to DT era is like comparing apples and oranges given the different circumstances that they worked under. Had DT been given the real opportunity to tank and rebuild he may have done a better job. DT had some good draft picks to go along with some real busts. We will never know. If DL was told that he had to absolutely make the playoffs this year to keep his job he might make some similar moves to what Taylor did.

butthead666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:59 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.