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

Los Angeles Kings Season Preview (Yahoo Sports)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-15-2010, 02:51 PM
  #26
Legionnaire
Kill! Jeff, Kill!!!
 
Legionnaire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: LA-LA Land
Country: United States
Posts: 35,575
vCash: 500
I couldn't get through the article because of the wrestling nonsense.

Legionnaire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2010, 04:58 PM
  #27
JT Dutch*
Cult of Personality
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buddy The Elf View Post
How do you give management a "C-" when every other category has a higher grade and all of those categories are management's responsibility?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
You obviously aren't going to give people credit for what has been done as well.
... What's actually obvious here is that you're Lombardi's biggest fan and never going to look at him as anything but an excellent GM and the savior of the Kings, and that's fine -- honestly I don't care one way or the other, it's an exercise in futility to change people's minds and you're never going to think otherwise.

I didn't flunk Lombardi, in fact I've pointed out the good things he's done here. A lot of those good things, however, have come at the expense of the team absolutely sucking. Is it THAT hard for a GM to build a prospect base if all the team does is suck for the first three years he's there? Is it THAT hard to build the prospect base when he sacrifices talent he inherited (Cammalleri) in order to acquire prospects? How much credit do you want to give him? Even if he gets an A- or a B+ for building the prospect base (which is pretty damn generous if you ask me), he gets a D- or an F for the results that have actually been produced up to this point. His W-L record and his playoff record could change this coming season, and that's why I said all the grades could change, but the fact of the matter is that right now his record is absolutely terrible.

There was a critical goaltending issue last season, and Lombardi cared so much about it that he did nothing. He had a chance at a marquee free agent in this offseason, and he blew it. His key forward and key goaltender were already in the system when he got here, in fact 4 of his 6 best forwards (Kopitar, Brown, Stoll, Frolov) were either already here or acquired by trading what he already had here. His best defenseman was a no-brainer pick brought on by the team sucking. So, he deserves credit for their performance??? His free agent signings have shown more failures than successes. His trading record is average at best. Where is this supposed "higher grade" supposed to come from? His promises? His bashing of college hockey programs? What justifies a higher rating?

JT Dutch* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2010, 05:59 PM
  #28
Buddy The Elf
Kings!
 
Buddy The Elf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Belmont Shore
Country: United States
Posts: 10,392
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch View Post
... What's actually obvious here is that you're Lombardi's biggest fan and never going to look at him as anything but an excellent GM and the savior of the Kings, and that's fine -- honestly I don't care one way or the other, it's an exercise in futility to change people's minds and you're never going to think otherwise.
First off, I'll assume you are directing this a Kings17 because I've been critical of Lombardi on more than one occasion. Most recently with his inactivity this summer. I was also critical last year that he didn't get a puck mover on the blueline or a veteran back up. So I'm just going to assume you directed that at him and not me. If you did include me in that, I'd like to read your reasoning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch View Post
I didn't flunk Lombardi, in fact I've pointed out the good things he's done here. A lot of those good things, however, have come at the expense of the team absolutely sucking. Is it THAT hard for a GM to build a prospect base if all the team does is suck for the first three years he's there? Is it THAT hard to build the prospect base when he sacrifices talent he inherited (Cammalleri) in order to acquire prospects? How much credit do you want to give him? Even if he gets an A- or a B+ for building the prospect base (which is pretty damn generous if you ask me), he gets a D- or an F for the results that have actually been produced up to this point. His W-L record and his playoff record could change this coming season, and that's why I said all the grades could change, but the fact of the matter is that right now his record is absolutely terrible.
I guess you are basing your grade on Lombardi's tenure where it appears you've graded the other categories based on how they are going into the season. The GM is responsible for the team that is going on the ice this season and I assumed that is what the grades were based on. Otherwise, you are grading the categories on different criteria.

That being said, what separates DL from DT or any other Kings GM then? DT had 3 picks in the first round of the 2003 draft and all we have to show for it is Dustin Brown. Sure it isn't hard to suck and get high draft picks and the Kings have been very good at that long before Lombardi got here. The bottom line is you still have to make the picks and that also requires you not to trade them away. Where others have had plans, Lombardi has stuck to his for better or worse. I will agree though that outside of Simmonds, Doughty and Johnson (he was a prospect when he was traded for), we don't have much to evaluate Lombardi on in terms of drafting history here. He did also bring in Matt Greene, Jarret Stoll, Brad Richardson, blah, blah, blah and I think he deserves credit for that. They were a big part of the reason the Kings made the playoffs last year and will most certainly factor in this year if they make it again.

I think it is very telling that even in one of your earlier posts in this thread you qualified your grades with the caveat that they could improve before the season is over. That tells me you feel the Kings are on the upswing. I can't even remember a time when the Kings were on an upswing. Even in the early 2000's the team was laden with veterans. This team has youth at the forefront in every position. And I'm talking on the actual roster, not in the minors developing. That isn't something I think I've EVER seen (I'll be 30 in a week).


Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch View Post
There was a critical goaltending issue last season, and Lombardi cared so much about it that he did nothing. He had a chance at a marquee free agent in this offseason, and he blew it. His key forward and key goaltender were already in the system when he got here, in fact 4 of his 6 best forwards (Kopitar, Brown, Stoll, Frolov) were either already here or acquired by trading what he already had here. His best defenseman was a no-brainer pick brought on by the team sucking. So, he deserves credit for their performance??? His free agent signings have shown more failures than successes. His trading record is average at best. Where is this supposed "higher grade" supposed to come from? His promises? His bashing of college hockey programs? What justifies a higher rating?
Ok I completely agree on the goaltending issue. That was a major blunder on his part and I think Murray coached with what he had. I think he shoudl have been vocal to Lombardi that he had no confidence in Ersberg or DL should have realized that and done something during the season.

I like how you slide Stoll in there under the guise that Lombardi got him by trading away talent he inherited. He still had to make the trade. Was that a no brainer? He also signed that player to a tradable contract something which I'm guessing you'd spin as a slight to a loyal player. So there is no winning that one with you.

I disagree on the no brainer comment about Doughty. There were plenty of people that thought the Kings would have take Doughty even if they had the first pick and also plenty of people that thought the Kings would have taken Bogosian. So while that wasn't a Thomas Hickey like pick, he still had to make it.

I also disagree on his trading record but I'm not going to go on and on about that.

Buddy The Elf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2010, 07:59 PM
  #29
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 16,740
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch View Post
... What's actually obvious here is that you're Lombardi's biggest fan and never going to look at him as anything but an excellent GM and the savior of the Kings, and that's fine -- honestly I don't care one way or the other, it's an exercise in futility to change people's minds and you're never going to think otherwise.

I didn't flunk Lombardi, in fact I've pointed out the good things he's done here. A lot of those good things, however, have come at the expense of the team absolutely sucking. Is it THAT hard for a GM to build a prospect base if all the team does is suck for the first three years he's there? Is it THAT hard to build the prospect base when he sacrifices talent he inherited (Cammalleri) in order to acquire prospects? How much credit do you want to give him? Even if he gets an A- or a B+ for building the prospect base (which is pretty damn generous if you ask me), he gets a D- or an F for the results that have actually been produced up to this point. His W-L record and his playoff record could change this coming season, and that's why I said all the grades could change, but the fact of the matter is that right now his record is absolutely terrible.

There was a critical goaltending issue last season, and Lombardi cared so much about it that he did nothing. He had a chance at a marquee free agent in this offseason, and he blew it. His key forward and key goaltender were already in the system when he got here, in fact 4 of his 6 best forwards (Kopitar, Brown, Stoll, Frolov) were either already here or acquired by trading what he already had here. His best defenseman was a no-brainer pick brought on by the team sucking. So, he deserves credit for their performance??? His free agent signings have shown more failures than successes. His trading record is average at best. Where is this supposed "higher grade" supposed to come from? His promises? His bashing of college hockey programs? What justifies a higher rating?
I have never made a secret about my agreement with the direction that Lombardi has taken the organization. If that makes me a "fan", so be it.

He did inherit some young talent, but to his credit he recognized that it was futile to do what AEG had asked and rebuild while remaining "competitive". Yes, he started trading away veteran assets that had value and stockpiled picks and prospects. That was a good idea, and not as easy a decision as some would like to believe. Maybe it is obvious in hindsight, but I don't think a lot of you were happy about it. I was very happy to be getting away from 8th - 11th place in the conference and into a draft position that would allow the Kings to select some elite young talent in the draft.

Doughty wasn't a no-brainer and the Kings did their homework in drafting him, but you give no credit for that.

The trades have been fine for the most part. The most glaring mistake was the trade for Cloutier and then signing him to an extension. But whatever JT, all of this has been discussed so many times with you that it really has become quite boring and tiresome.

KINGS17 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2010, 08:23 PM
  #30
etherialone
dialed in your mom
 
etherialone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Ether
Country: United Nations
Posts: 12,990
vCash: 500
I dunno, I think that our management deserves a big old A. Although, time will tell who is right. If things go right then we will see an overall improvement this season with a further push in the playoffs. Then next season we might see another one or two of our touted kids step up and graduate.

By the following season we should be a team that is largely manned by our own home grown core guys and then we will be ready to make a serious run at the cup. Anything can happen in the meantime and we have an amazing top 7 d corps (when all are healthy). Brayden needs to get in and establish hmself and so does Hickey. If those two make it this year then we could be one of the top 4 teams in the league in my opinion.

etherialone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2010, 02:14 AM
  #31
RonSwanson*
Gadfly
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Food 'N Stuff
Country: United States
Posts: 8,769
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsholygrail View Post
Is that John Cena?
Looked like he was wearing Cloutier's mask.

RonSwanson* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2010, 03:22 AM
  #32
Randart
Registered User
 
Randart's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Carson, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,127
vCash: 500
Actually...

Think I will reserve my grades for a bit, reason being this team right here right now as of today: They are a complete dice roll to me, could be good, or could be belly up bottom of the division and the Conference. I feel we are thin at forward skill wise very very thin, and chemistry is a huge question mark to me.

Our coach has a sound defensive system and we have good coaches. But our coach is over the top a kook about his lines and benchings. Seems to play favorites and just so much I could say that has been said or alluded to. The guys seem to like playing here the ones we have, but I feel our organization sometimes is not executing as well as they could and it has cost us in players we could have had or lost etc.

I did not predict we would make the playoffs last season but I certainly thought we had a more stable situation than I do today. So let the dice roll and the chips fly on the green felt... One of these days you figure something has to go right for our Kings right? Just maybe it could be sooner than later, make it happen or Karack the all knowing and all seeing...

Randart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2010, 05:12 PM
  #33
JT Dutch*
Cult of Personality
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buddy The Elf View Post
First off, I'll assume you are directing this a Kings17 because I've been critical of Lombardi on more than one occasion.
... Yeah, of course I am.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buddy The Elf View Post
I guess you are basing your grade on Lombardi's tenure where it appears you've graded the other categories based on how they are going into the season. The GM is responsible for the team that is going on the ice this season and I assumed that is what the grades were based on
... Actually, the grades are based on last season's performance. If I were grading the forwards going into this season it would be a C+, based on how those forwards will likely be used. Certainly some forwards being placed in different roles would have a positive effect on overall production from them next season, in my view, but I don't see that happening with this management team in place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buddy The Elf View Post
That being said, what separates DL from DT or any other Kings GM then? DT had 3 picks in the first round of the 2003 draft and all we have to show for it is Dustin Brown. Sure it isn't hard to suck and get high draft picks and the Kings have been very good at that long before Lombardi got here.
... Lombardi's first two seasons were two of the worst six seasons in Kings' history, and the worst seasons the club had in 20 years. Considering this is Kings' history we're talking about, that's pretty bad. And, beyond that, the point isn't comparing Lombardi to Kings' GMs of the past - even though he hasn't distinguished himself in even THAT company - the point is looking at his record as a whole and comparing it to the rest of the NHL. As for "sticking to the plan", again if you go back in the team's history, really the only times the Kings abandoned a plan of building from within were when they made the acquisitions for true star players like Marcel Dionne, Wayne Gretzky, and Zigmund Palffy - and, not coincidentally, those begun the three most successful periods in the history of the team.

As for being younger than the teams of 1998 and 2000, they are; but not by all that much. In 1998, the top 15 players on the Kings averaged 27.7 years of age. In 2000, they averaged 27.9. In 2009-10, they averaged 26.9. In every one of these seasons, 11 of the top 15 players were under the age of 30. Obviously, the big three (Kopitar, Doughty, Simmonds) are 20-22, and the '98 and '00 teams had no players quite that young. Maybe the good times ARE ready to roll in L.A. I'm certainly optimistic about the prospect base, but I'm not as optimistic on how these players will be handled by management once they reach the NHL - based on how I've seen Kings' players handled in the past four years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buddy The Elf View Post
I like how you slide Stoll in there under the guise that Lombardi got him by trading away talent he inherited. He still had to make the trade. Was that a no brainer? He also signed that player to a tradable contract something which I'm guessing you'd spin as a slight to a loyal player.
... I actually went on record as saying I liked the acquisitions of Stoll and Greene. I didn't like how it was handled from Visnovsky's perspective, however, and I think that's the rap on Lombardi - he throws class out the window, which makes the whole issue of the way Kovalchuk was "questioned" in L.A. that much more hypocritical. I do think that this makes a difference on how players view the Kings as a franchise, especially when there isn't any reputation of success to draw from, like there is with someone like Lamoriello. Lombardi had to work harder to get the Kovalchuk deal done; instead he acted as if Kovalchuk needed to understand the "privilege" of playing for a team which had lost 164 games in the past four seasons. If he didn't really want the man in the first place, why bother wasting his (and Kovalchuk's) time? Again, this goes hand-in-hand with the bizarre comments about Jack Johnson and Michigan hockey. It's ok to pull this kind of horse**** if you have the success to back it up - but Lombardi doesn't have that yet, and it isn't a foregone conclusion that he will.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buddy The Elf View Post
I disagree on the no brainer comment about Doughty. There were plenty of people that thought the Kings would have take Doughty even if they had the first pick and also plenty of people that thought the Kings would have taken Bogosian. So while that wasn't a Thomas Hickey like pick, he still had to make it.
... Agree to disagree. Doughty was listed #2 in NHL central scouting longer than Bogosian was, and I'm sure the vast majority of GMs would have made the exact same pick Lombardi did, had they been in that position. It wasn't rocket science at all. Simmonds was the definition of a great pick. Doughty wasn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
But whatever JT, all of this has been discussed so many times with you that it really has become quite boring and tiresome.
... Then don't respond to me, I guess? Don't gripe to me about something YOU chose to do. Maybe if you didn't view any below-excellent rating as a slight against your hero, you wouldn't feel the need to come and defend him all the time? Hope this helps.

JT Dutch* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2010, 05:23 PM
  #34
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 16,740
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch View Post


Then don't respond to me, I guess? Don't gripe to me about something YOU chose to do. Maybe if you didn't view any below-excellent rating as a slight against your hero, you wouldn't feel the need to come and defend him all the time? Hope this helps.
Stop exaggerating everything and I won't respond. Did I say Lombardi deserved an excellent rating?

All I did was say your C- was a joke. I wouldn't defend what management has done to FINALLY get this franchise moving in the right direction if you didn't feel the need to attack it constantly. Hope that helped you.

KINGS17 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2010, 05:28 PM
  #35
JDM
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 9,968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch View Post
... Actually, the grades are based on last season's performance. If I were grading the forwards going into this season it would be a C+, based on how those forwards will likely be used. Certainly some forwards being placed in different roles would have a positive effect on overall production from them next season, in my view, but I don't see that happening with this management team in place.
What does this even mean?

Besides playing Simmonds on the 1st line over Williams, what real decisions are there to make in terms of the offense?

Parse over Smyth?

Richardson over Stoll?

Poni over all?

The roster is pretty clear cut, save for the 2nd line LW spot and the 4th line. Unless you are talking about giving Oscar Moller 20 minutes a night, I don't really know what you are referring to in terms of usage of players by management (you probably meant to say the coaching staff) that would make a drastic difference. Could you elaborate?

I'm going to assume it means that you expect Parse to not get his shot at the 2nd line LW and that Williams should be on the 3rd line and Simmonds on the 1st.

If this is what you mean, then I have to disagree. While I love the thought of Simmonds on the 1st line, and think he could be very effective there, he is also EXTREMELY effective on the 3rd line. In fact, his presence there is half the reason we have one of the best third lines in the game. Williams, I feel, would not be effective at all in a checking role. With Simmonds with Kopi and Willy with Zus, we have a very good 1st line and a decent to good third line. With Willy on the first and Simmonds with Zus, we have a very good 1st line (potentially great if they catch fire again) and one of the best 3rd lines. That would be my preference, as much as I personally like Simmonds. Its about more than the one player.

As for the 2nd line LW spot, I think Parse will get it, but I doubt he maintains it as his intensity level has never stayed consistent game to game. The other options are Moller or Richardson, both who could fill in very well there. Its kind of a toss up, so again, I'm not sure where your rationale (assuming it is your rationale in the first place), sees one player over another making a world of difference.


Last edited by JDM: 09-16-2010 at 05:35 PM.
JDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2010, 05:40 PM
  #36
two out of three*
 
two out of three*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Newbury Park, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,829
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to two out of three* Send a message via AIM to two out of three*
Lombardi's grade will solely come down to how well particular prospects perform. Those being Thomas Hickey (IMO most importantly Hickey), Andrei Loktionov, Brayden Schenn, and Jonathan Bernier.

But if you have to grade him RIGHT NOW, without those prospects in the question.. I don't how you can give him over a B. We took ZERO steps forward this offseason, which is a shame because you'd figure after making the playoffs the first time in a long long time you would wanna keep improving. Now, that being said.. Maybe the prospects that we have will step in and all in all improve the squad but thats yet to be seen. (And I actually feel that they will indeed improve the squad, but they haven't.. yet.)

two out of three* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2010, 05:43 PM
  #37
JDM
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 9,968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by two out of three View Post
Lombardi's grade will solely come down to how well particular prospects perform. Those being Thomas Hickey (IMO most importantly Hickey), Andrei Loktionov, Brayden Schenn, and Jonathan Bernier.

But if you have to grade him RIGHT NOW, without those prospects in the question.. I don't how you can give him over a B. We took ZERO steps forward this offseason, which is a shame because you'd figure after making the playoffs the first time in a long long time you would wanna keep improving. Now, that being said.. Maybe the prospects that we have will step in and all in all improve the squad but thats yet to be seen. (And I actually feel that they will indeed improve the squad, but they haven't.. yet.)
erm... Willie Mitchell is a pretty big step forward.

JDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2010, 05:45 PM
  #38
two out of three*
 
two out of three*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Newbury Park, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,829
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to two out of three* Send a message via AIM to two out of three*
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDM View Post
I'm going to assume it means that you expect Parse to not get his shot at the 2nd line LW and that Williams should be on the 3rd line and Simmonds on the 1st.

If this is what you mean, then I have to disagree. While I love the thought of Simmonds on the 1st line, and think he could be very effective there, he is also EXTREMELY effective on the 3rd line. In fact, his presence there is half the reason we have one of the best third lines in the game. Williams, I feel, would not be effective at all in a checking role. With Simmonds with Kopi and Willy with Zus, we have a very good 1st line and a decent to good third line. With Willy on the first and Simmonds with Zus, we have a very good 1st line (potentially great if they catch fire again) and one of the best 3rd lines. That would be my preference, as much as I personally like Simmonds. Its about more than the one player.

As for the 2nd line LW spot, I think Parse will get it, but I doubt he maintains it as his intensity level has never stayed consistent game to game. The other options are Moller or Richardson, both who could fill in very well there. Its kind of a toss up, so again, I'm not sure where your rationale (assuming it is your rationale in the first place), sees one player over another making a world of difference.
I actually disagree on Justin Williams failing in a checking role.. It is probably time for Willy (and I actually am still pulling for Justn) to accept and embrace the role of a 3rd line energy guy. A combination of Richardson-Handzus-Williams will still be effective.

However, I think what JT is getting at, and I feel the same way.. Is that we have players in the system that are better than the players that will ultimately get jobs with the big squad.. Moller, Loktionov, Clifford, Hickey, Muzzin, Voynov, etc etc. are better options than Drewiske, Harrold, Parse, Clune, Westgarth, Lewis..

But again.. Its yet to be seen. I just wanna finally effin see.. Give these guys a shot. Nicklas Lidstrom at one point in his career was "un proven." How are you supposed to become proven without a chance to prove yourself?

two out of three* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2010, 05:45 PM
  #39
Cutty Sarkn3ss*
I bet u trade me
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Granada Hills, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,983
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Cutty Sarkn3ss*
LOL @ JT saying "Don't respond to what I have to say" when the whole point of you posting is expecting a response out of Pro-Lombardi posters . . .

Cutty Sarkn3ss* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2010, 05:47 PM
  #40
two out of three*
 
two out of three*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Newbury Park, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,829
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to two out of three* Send a message via AIM to two out of three*
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDM View Post
erm... Willie Mitchell is a pretty big step forward.
"Pretty big" step forward? You caught me though.. Its a step forward, but.. "Pretty big?"

two out of three* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2010, 05:50 PM
  #41
JDM
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 9,968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by two out of three View Post
"Pretty big" step forward? You caught me though.. Its a step forward, but.. "Pretty big?"
Yes, a pretty damn big step. Mitchell is a top 4 defenseman and a top pairing shutdown defender. Hell, he is a #1 shutdown guy on most teams when healthy. He is Volchenkov. He is better than Hamhuis. He is Orpik. He is a huge addition.

DD-Scuds
OD-JJ
Jones-Greene

is noticeably worse than

DD-Mitchell
JJ-Scuds
Greene-rookie.

Come playoff time, you just watch what a big friggin addition Mitchell is for this team.

JDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2010, 06:03 PM
  #42
Buddy The Elf
Kings!
 
Buddy The Elf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Belmont Shore
Country: United States
Posts: 10,392
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch View Post
... Lombardi's first two seasons were two of the worst six seasons in Kings' history, and the worst seasons the club had in 20 years. Considering this is Kings' history we're talking about, that's pretty bad. And, beyond that, the point isn't comparing Lombardi to Kings' GMs of the past - even though he hasn't distinguished himself in even THAT company - the point is looking at his record as a whole and comparing it to the rest of the NHL. As for "sticking to the plan", again if you go back in the team's history, really the only times the Kings abandoned a plan of building from within were when they made the acquisitions for true star players like Marcel Dionne, Wayne Gretzky, and Zigmund Palffy - and, not coincidentally, those begun the three most successful periods in the history of the team.
Ok so if you are going to bomb on him for having two of the worst seasons in Kings history, you ought to be lathering up a nice one to give him credit for the team last year posting their best finish in 10 years. I'm going off their position in the standings to determine "their best finish" as to not get into a debate about shootouts.

Lets be honest, if the team isn't going to make the playoffs which they've done quite a bit in their history, you might as well finish as close to last as possible and maximize your draft pick value. While Dave Taylor's teams were continually fighting for 9th place, Lombardi swooped up some high draft picks and is turning this thing around in a few painful years. Yet you criticize Lombardi for moving out players to rebuild the team. I would just like to hear what you would have done in July of 2006 has you taken the job. They guy came up with a plan and started to execute it and no matter what he did, it was never the right move. You like the Visnovsky trade but you criticize him for making the move. Well which is it? Would you have preferred to have Lubomir on the roster now? Would you have preferred he let the guy walk instead of re-signing him and ultimately trading him? WHy don't you go through all of your criticisms and make some suggestions on what DL should have done?

Look, Lombardi is not infallible. He has made mistakes but I just get a kick out of your obvious bias against the guy and I'm not certain where it comes from. I don't know how you felt about previous Kings GM's. I would hope you share the same disdain for their performance with the Kings but something tells me you have some excuses for them.

Ultimately, for me, Lombardi's tenure will be graded solely on how close he is able to get the Kings to a Stanley Cup. Lets hope that is closer than anyone has got before. I wanna see the damn thing in a Kings players hands above his head before I die.


Last edited by Buddy The Elf: 09-16-2010 at 06:11 PM.
Buddy The Elf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2010, 06:33 PM
  #43
JDM
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 9,968
vCash: 500
Forgot there was one other point I wanted to contend.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch View Post
As for "sticking to the plan", again if you go back in the team's history, really the only times the Kings abandoned a plan of building from within were when they made the acquisitions for true star players like Marcel Dionne, Wayne Gretzky, and Zigmund Palffy - and, not coincidentally, those begun the three most successful periods in the history of the team.
The only time? There never was a plan of building from within that was stuck to even loosely.

The problem was not acquiring those three. Those three helped the franchise a great deal. If Dean made one of those trades today, it wouldn't be a departure from his plan. It would be a piece in the plan. Sticking to a plan doesn't mean being myopic and never trading for proven talent. Its a general way of running the show. Dean is running that show well, in a way that it never was before.

The problem was the little moves that followed. That's the departure from the plan. Cliff Ronning, Anson Carter, Roenick, Heinze, etc. Picking up declining players at the cost of prospects, or in the case of JR, relying on a vet who was really just a name, eating up and wasting ice time.

Or losing Mair and a pick for Rasmussen.

Or losing Lilja for Yushkevich.

Or Straka.

Or losing a pick for Steve Passmore.

Or perhaps one of the worst trades ever, Parrish and Sopel for Tambellini and Grebeshkov.

The equivalents today would be trading Parse and Richardson for a Spacek or Mike Grier. Or trading Martin Jones and Oscar Moller for an Ales Kotalik or some other overpaid, declining player. Or tradng Voynov and Simmonds for Kovalev. Etc, etc.

The big trades weren't the problem. The little moves define the direction.

JDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2010, 07:11 PM
  #44
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 16,740
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDM View Post
Forgot there was one other point I wanted to contend.



The only time? There never was a plan of building from within that was stuck to even loosely.

The problem was not acquiring those three. Those three helped the franchise a great deal. If Dean made one of those trades today, it wouldn't be a departure from his plan. It would be a piece in the plan. Sticking to a plan doesn't mean being myopic and never trading for proven talent. Its a general way of running the show. Dean is running that show well, in a way that it never was before.

The problem was the little moves that followed. That's the departure from the plan. Cliff Ronning, Anson Carter, Roenick, Heinze, etc. Picking up declining players at the cost of prospects, or in the case of JR, relying on a vet who was really just a name, eating up and wasting ice time.

Or losing Mair and a pick for Rasmussen.

Or losing Lilja for Yushkevich.

Or Straka.

Or losing a pick for Steve Passmore.

Or perhaps one of the worst trades ever, Parrish and Sopel for Tambellini and Grebeshkov.

The equivalents today would be trading Parse and Richardson for a Spacek or Mike Grier. Or trading Martin Jones and Oscar Moller for an Ales Kotalik or some other overpaid, declining player. Or tradng Voynov and Simmonds for Kovalev. Etc, etc.

The big trades weren't the problem. The little moves define the direction.
This goes back even further. For example, let's not forget great acquisitions like Rick Martin and Steve Shutt. To deny that this is the first time that the Kings have ever stuck to a plan of building through the draft is quite laughable.

KINGS17 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2010, 07:31 PM
  #45
KopitarFAN
Reno Sucks!
 
KopitarFAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Lost Wages, NV
Country: United States
Posts: 9,723
vCash: 500
There is still a lot more growth left in the young guys on this team.

Can Doughty become a 70 point D-Man?(ala Lidstrom) We'll see. Will his defensive game improve? I think so.

Can Kopitar take that step as a 90 point guy? We'll see.

Can Simmonds score 20-25 goals? I think so.

Can JJ become a 50 point D-Man? I think so. Will his defensive game improve? We'll see.

KopitarFAN is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2010, 09:29 PM
  #46
etherialone
dialed in your mom
 
etherialone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Ether
Country: United Nations
Posts: 12,990
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
This goes back even further. For example, let's not forget great acquisitions like Rick Martin and Steve Shutt. To deny that this is the first time that the Kings have ever stuck to a plan of building through the draft is quite laughable.
I agree with this line of thinking.

I remember when we dealt for Shutt, and I remember when we dealt for Laughlin and several other big fixes throughout the years. I remember watching amazingly talented young players leave for "established veterans" who promptly failed or where overwhelmed and in the end did little for us.

At least in many ways that is. It could be said that once a major talent gets here and stays that they can attract other big name players. The 99 years proved that but that is one time when it truly worked and I can sight you several other times that it didn't.

For what its worth, getting Willie was a big deal to me but then so was getting Scuds and keeping Green. Heck, dealing for JJ was a huge deal in my opinion. But what I think was the biggest thing that we have done to date this offseason is that we have stuck with our own talented youth and kept developing them.

From this point, we certainly have room for improvement but at least we have the amazingly deep amount of talent to work with and further this process.

This is new ground for us, like it or not. We have never had this much depth of talent in our system from top to bottom and as such we are all going to have different times/things that cause us concern.

That said though it simply cannot be successfully argued that we have ever been this deep and so to my way of thinking we are finally at a stage where *not* dealing these kids away can be seen as a major step forward and a solid amount of improvement to our overall team.

Each year that DL goes to the draft table we improve our team significantly, it just takes time to see the results but we absolutely do.

So I gave DL and co an A for this offseason. I am typically very critical of him and what I see as being his terrible negotiating practices but this year I am satisfied with how things have worked out.

I am not overly optimistic about our chances to win it all at this point for the coming season but if you ask me rather or not I think that we will be in position to do so next year and for a few years to come I will tell you that as of this point in time, I think we are more prepared to do so then ever before.

The question going forward is will DL be capable of signing our talent and making the final move or two (if needed) to put the finishing pieces in place that will bring us the cup. To that question I am not certain but up to this point, I would give them a pretty good grade for this offseason.

In short, having a deep system is absolutely what won the cup for the Wings. A deep system and an overall belief that winning was above everything else from the owner down to the Event Staff guys at the Joe. (Being good to great at the draft was too but I would argue that we are being good to great at the draft as well).

We are closer than ever to being a true legitimate contender with a deep enough system to remain a threat to win it all for a number of years to come.

Maybe it will take an entirely new management team to get us to the promised land but as of now, our current group has done a great job of laying a very solid foundation and that is something.

etherialone 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 09:31 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.