Who in the last 5 years have the Kings lost to waivers ? none come to mind, oh wait Brandon Segal, almost forgot about him, but who else ? maybe you can refresh my memory.
Who in the last 5 years have the Kings lost to waivers ? none come to mind, oh wait Brandon Segal, almost forgot about him, but who else ? maybe you can refresh my memory.
Matt Ellis?
Last edited by Anjae11Eden: 09-25-2010 at 11:33 PM.
OK Cowan was 2006, and while not a big lose, he filled a role that we didn't have a replacement for at the time, so he qualifies.
And I guess you're right Buffalo claimed Ellis from us in '08, but since we had claimed him prior, I can't count him as someone the KINGS lost.
Yes Yanick Lehoux was claimed by Phoenix, but then we claimed him back, then they claimed him back, then we said no you keep him. So I can't count him as a lose either.
Everybody who thinks putting Parse would be a good move knows **** about this game. Aside from the fact you like him or not, putting Parse on waivers would just be atrocious asset management.
If the Kings decided that Scott is expendable, they will sure get something back in a trade.
The poor asset management was in giving him the 2-year, 1-way deal, albeit at a low figure for the NHL.
Parse has quick hands and feet, and potted a couple of highlight reel goals, but he's pretty light away from the puck and hasn't shown much in terms of understanding the pro game. I really don't understand why some of you guys get so excited over this guy - he's a dime a dozen AHL'er that came in and looked just decent in some protected minutes.
I'm not so certain that he has earned a spot on the pro team to break camp, and ideally you would like to give one of the kids in Manchester (whom you have more of an investment in) that shot to come in and play injury fill in or temporary minutes in a scoring role if they are playing well.
My concern would be that if Clifford, Schenn or Loktionov out play him and deserve that spot, that they would keep Parse around simply because they can move those three without losing them. To me, that's worse asset management than simply waiving Parse.
The poor asset management was in giving him the 2-year, 1-way deal, albeit at a low figure for the NHL.
Parse has quick hands and feet, and potted a couple of highlight reel goals, but he's pretty light away from the puck and hasn't shown much in terms of understanding the pro game. I really don't understand why some of you guys get so excited over this guy - he's a dime a dozen AHL'er that came in and looked just decent in some protected minutes.
I'm not so certain that he has earned a spot on the pro team to break camp, and ideally you would like to give one of the kids in Manchester (whom you have more of an investment in) that shot to come in and play injury fill in or temporary minutes in a scoring role if they are playing well.
My concern would be that if Clifford, Schenn or Loktionov out play him and deserve that spot, that they would keep Parse around simply because they can move those three without losing them. To me, that's worse asset management than simply waiving Parse.
At first I thought I'd cut the parts I would agree with, but i found out I argee with everything you said here. Good post.
For what he is supposed to bring, on any type of line, he has proven nothing to say he deserves any role yet, even less with a one way contract. Anyone can spin his numbers, shooting percentage or whatever, but as a 200 feet hockey player my eyes tells he has proven nothing.
We want wins, via "tough to play against". That means the full surface as much as possible. If we want to keep our 09/10- level, and/or take the it to the next 10/11, that means we shouldn't be waiting on someone to catch up and "get it", if it (i.e. someone) is already there.
So I can't count him as a lose either.
