HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Los Angeles Kings
Notices

Why do they get so much better...

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-29-2011, 04:14 PM
  #1
SMoneyMonkey
Registered User
 
SMoneyMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LA/MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,506
vCash: 500
Why do they get so much better...

After we trade them.

There's a post on the NHL General forum about Purcell. If you watch him he's great, I don't think he would really have fit on the kings line up but, still, a decent talent. Much better than say... Halpern. Boyle is doing very well for himself, too. And Moulson is yeah.

Anyways, I don't want to turn this into a "Lawl, DL sucks" thread. I just want to know what you guys think is the reason for their success after being traded. Is it just the change of scenery? Is it the East vs West playstyle? Is it not being coached by Murray?

There's obviously got to be a reason.

How many more points do you think Kopitar would have on different teams with different systems? Doughty?

Something is obviously stunting our talent, what is it?

SMoneyMonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2011, 04:42 PM
  #2
DeeMeck
Registered User
 
DeeMeck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,366
vCash: 50
I read that our scouts were way off on Purcell. If so, every scout, manager, coach and anyone in the front office should be tarred, feathered, and fired.


DeeMeck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2011, 04:48 PM
  #3
kingpest19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SMoneyMonkey View Post
After we trade them.

There's a post on the NHL General forum about Purcell. If you watch him he's great, I don't think he would really have fit on the kings line up but, still, a decent talent. Much better than say... Halpern. Boyle is doing very well for himself, too. And Moulson is yeah.

Anyways, I don't want to turn this into a "Lawl, DL sucks" thread. I just want to know what you guys think is the reason for their success after being traded. Is it just the change of scenery? Is it the East vs West playstyle? Is it not being coached by Murray?

There's obviously got to be a reason.

How many more points do you think Kopitar would have on different teams with different systems? Doughty?

Something is obviously stunting our talent, what is it?
In Purcells case look at who he gets to play with. Moulson just seems to have broken out but he could also be one of those guys thats a 30 goal guy on a crap team and goes elsewhere and doesnt do anything. Boyle may have broken out or he may have just had a hell of a hot streak.

kingpest19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2011, 04:57 PM
  #4
SMoneyMonkey
Registered User
 
SMoneyMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LA/MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingpest19 View Post
In Purcells case look at who he gets to play with. Moulson just seems to have broken out but he could also be one of those guys thats a 30 goal guy on a crap team and goes elsewhere and doesnt do anything. Boyle may have broken out or he may have just had a hell of a hot streak.
So Purcell is doing better because Tampa Bay has better players than LA.

Moulson is doing better because New York has worse players than LA.

And Boyle is doing better just because...

I think you just dodged my question.

SMoneyMonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2011, 05:02 PM
  #5
DeeMeck
Registered User
 
DeeMeck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,366
vCash: 50
It goes back to being systematic.

Would Richardson, Simmonds, or Clifford be any good on a free-wheeling, non-defense playing team like the Islanders?

DeeMeck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2011, 05:07 PM
  #6
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,883
vCash: 500
Quote:
How many more points do you think Kopitar would have on different teams with different systems?
1000.

Quote:
Doughty?
From the blueline? Maybe 200ish. 205, give or take. Especially with the way he played this year.

Quote:
Something is obviously stunting our talent, what is it?
Suffocating coaching. I'm surprised the players show up for work each day. They should go on strike for having to work under these conditions.

Quote:
There's a post on the NHL General forum about Purcell. If you watch him he's great, I don't think he would really have fit on the kings line up but, still, a decent talent.
If Purcell is great with one year of 17 goals and 51 points, and 1 goal in a 1st round series, why do we complain about the wingers the Kings currently have?

KingsFan7824 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2011, 05:08 PM
  #7
SMoneyMonkey
Registered User
 
SMoneyMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LA/MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,506
vCash: 500
All evidence points to yes.

I mean, has anybody been traded from the Kings and then played worse?

SMoneyMonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2011, 05:09 PM
  #8
SMoneyMonkey
Registered User
 
SMoneyMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LA/MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingsFan7824 View Post
1000.



From the blueline? Maybe 200ish. 205, give or take. Especially with the way he played this year.



Suffocating coaching. I'm surprised the players show up for work each day. They should go on strike for having to work under these conditions.



If Purcell is great with one year of 17 goals and 51 points, and 1 goal in a 1st round series, why do we complain about the wingers the Kings currently have?
Thanks for the completely useless post. And great is relative. A 51 point scorer on one team is a career AHLer on another. There's obviously something wrong.

SMoneyMonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2011, 05:22 PM
  #9
kingpest19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SMoneyMonkey View Post
So Purcell is doing better because Tampa Bay has better players than LA.

Moulson is doing better because New York has worse players than LA.

And Boyle is doing better just because...

I think you just dodged my question.
How did I dodge the question? I said in the other thread that the system is a better fit for him in TB but playing Lecavalier and Gagne isnt going to hurt the stat line. Who exactly did he play with in LA that has that talent? He didnt play with Kopitar very much. He spent the majority of his time with Stoll or Handzus as his center. Are you going to tell me that either of those guys come close to Lecavalier?

Would Moulson be a 30 goal scorer on a team with top 6 depth? Hes playing almost 19m a game on a team with no real depth to speak of. Put him on a team with top 6 depth and chances are its a different story.

And like I said about Boyle he could have broken out or he could have just had a great year. Not the first player to do so and not the last. Only time will tell.

kingpest19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2011, 05:28 PM
  #10
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
 
Ziggy Stardust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 31,123
vCash: 500
It's the system. Kings don't play an up tempo style game that TB or the Islanders play, which explains why Purcell and Moulson flourished elsewhere.

Ziggy Stardust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2011, 05:30 PM
  #11
TonySCV
Moderator
Two Timer!
 
TonySCV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 12,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post
It's the system. Kings don't play an up tempo style game that TB or the Islanders play, which explains why Purcell and Moulson flourished elsewhere.
Not to mention the caliber of talent they are playing with.

Purcell - Lecavalier - Stamkos = sweet Jesus.



Moulson - Tavares - Okposo = not too shabby either.



It's not like Purcell is lighting the world on fire. 17 goals and 34 assists is good, but with those linemates Kevin Westgarth could achieve those #'s.


Last edited by TonySCV: 04-29-2011 at 05:39 PM.
TonySCV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2011, 05:36 PM
  #12
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
 
Ziggy Stardust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 31,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySCV View Post
Not to mention the caliber of talent they are playing with.
I also would add to that by the fact that they have less responsibilities placed upon them with their new clubs compared to what was expected from them under Terry Murray and his approach.

Ziggy Stardust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2011, 05:43 PM
  #13
Moses Doughty
LA's offense offends
 
Moses Doughty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Drewbacca
Country: United States
Posts: 8,068
vCash: 500
Purcell also gets to play in the less physical east and much softer Southeast. Coming from one the mot physical(imo) division in hockey. A soft player is better against softer teams obviously

Moses Doughty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2011, 05:48 PM
  #14
Telos
Moderator
In Dean We Trust
 
Telos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,204
vCash: 3578
Send a message via ICQ to Telos Send a message via AIM to Telos Send a message via MSN to Telos Send a message via Yahoo to Telos
It has more to do with opportunity I think. These guys are playing A LOT of games getting top flight minutes. Eventually you'll fall into sink and the pucks will start going in. With the Kings, you aren't on a line or have stable minutes unless your name is Doughty or Kopitar. You fluctuate constantly. One day you are with these guys, the next your with those guys, one day you are getting 20 minutes, the next you are getting 10... There is no such thing as finding your groove on the Kings, it is adapting and performing on a moving/fluctuating platform.

__________________

“Every good army needs a couple of criminals.” - Dean Lombardi
Telos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2011, 05:56 PM
  #15
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,883
vCash: 500
Quote:
Thanks for the completely useless post. And great is relative. A 51 point scorer on one team is a career AHLer on another. There's obviously something wrong.
If anyone knew Moulson would score 30 goals in two consecutive seasons, I'm sure some team other than the Islanders would have signed him for nothing prior to the 6th of July back in 2009.

Before this season started, do you think the Rangers(or anyone) had any idea that Boyle would put up anything close to the numbers he had this year?

Again, before the season started, was Purcell that big of a loss? Even now, would he have been the missing piece? Is he the big scorer that the Kings need?

Quote:
I just want to know what you guys think is the reason for their success after being traded.
It happens sometimes. Right situation, right time.

There was no room for Purcell on the team. Boyle had no place on the team other than the 4th line. Nobody was in a hurry to sign Moulson when the Kings let him go. Give each guy credit for saving their NHL careers, especially Boyle, who did nothing his first year away from the Kings.

KingsFan7824 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2011, 06:06 PM
  #16
johnjm22
16,005
 
johnjm22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Barstow, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,420
vCash: 500
It happens all the time in sports; players get a change of scenery and things start to click for them.

It's probably the result of a combination of factors, but I think MM and TP got a fair chance here. I don't think Boyle was given much opportunity though, had he been acquired by DL, he probably would have been given more of a shot.

As for TM's system, there's nothing unique about it, it's pretty standard, and is average offensively. I don't think you could say it's the main reason for TP, MM, and BB not succeeding here.

johnjm22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2011, 06:23 PM
  #17
Fishhead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,066
vCash: 500
It happens less than you think, it's just that it's obvious when it does.

Sometimes young players get a change of scenery and just fit in.

Usually they don't progress or regress, they just live up to their expectation (Reinprecht, J. Blake, Rome, Steckel, etc.).

Sometimes they start sucking or never live up to the hype (O'Sullivan, Tukonen, Tambellini, Pushkarev, Berg etc.)

Sometimes they end up showing some solid skills, like the three you mentioned.


System and style plays a part in this, sure, but it is more of an indication of draft/development prowess. Since around 2005, the Kings have really improved their drafting. They have now had the Monarchs for 10 years, which gives stability on the development side of things. This type of thing is going to start happening more and more as the Kings get better and there are few spots for solid young players to break in.

Fishhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2011, 06:55 PM
  #18
agentfouser
Playoffs?!?!
 
agentfouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Country: Ireland
Posts: 2,361
vCash: 500
Purcell had all the opportunity in the world here, with good players. He was just ineffective. I don't know if he improved his skills or make some kind of pact with the Devil or what, but he was just an ineffective player here. He was a step too slow, his shots were ALWAYS blocked, and he constantly turned the puck over. I don't see how Lombardi and Murray could have continued to give him opportunity after opportunity when he just was not producing.

I've heard Boyle changed his fitness regime and his attitude after going to NY, and that he came into camp fitter and more consistently intense. Maybe he got a good sports psychologist?

As for Moulson, I don't know.

Edit: In answer to your direct question of why they get so much better after we trade them, the answer is selection bias. You've picked the three examples of people who did. In all three cases they were relatively young, and could be expected to improve. There have been many other players who were traded or otherwise left the organization and did nothing, and plenty other people who did just as well after leaving. I'm sure if you looked at older players who left the team and continued their career elsewhere, you'd find that their performance declined, as one would expect of a player on the downside of his career.

agentfouser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2011, 07:07 PM
  #19
SMoneyMonkey
Registered User
 
SMoneyMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LA/MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingsFan7824 View Post
If anyone knew Moulson would score 30 goals in two consecutive seasons, I'm sure some team other than the Islanders would have signed him for nothing prior to the 6th of July back in 2009.

Before this season started, do you think the Rangers(or anyone) had any idea that Boyle would put up anything close to the numbers he had this year?

Again, before the season started, was Purcell that big of a loss? Even now, would he have been the missing piece? Is he the big scorer that the Kings need?
Doesn't really pertain to the thread. But of course, hindsight is 20/20, which is why I think we should employ to see why they're so successful with other franchises. And I'm not saying losing them was a mistake, I don't think Moulson was ever going to make it and Purcell got his chances. Boyle may have been mishandled but that happens.

So how much of it is the constant line changes? And how do we fix that? I don't watch other teams too closely so don't notice when they change lines but, do the Kings do it more?

I also agree with the linemates and Time on Ice arguments. Do the Kings have too many borderline 1st/2nd line guys for our potential 1st/2nd line prospects to get a decent chance?

Basically, what should change to make sure we aren't wasting our prospect pool? We keep talking about our future while giving almost none of it a decent chance. I like that we let players develop but, I think we've got to take a few more risks.

SMoneyMonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2011, 07:10 PM
  #20
Tadite
Registered User
 
Tadite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rhode Island
Country: United States
Posts: 4,787
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by agentfouser View Post
Purcell. I don't see how Lombardi and Murray could have continued to give him opportunity after opportunity when he just was not producing.
I remember Luc, and I think, DL, talking about Purcell how he had top-6 potential. How he was a guy who need a change to break his mental lock. He just got stuck in a rut for years... Good for him for having growth. I don't think he's going to be the end all be all but at least he seems to be having a career.

Quote:
Originally Posted by agentfouser View Post
I've heard Boyle changed his fitness regime and his attitude after going to NY, and that he came into camp fitter and more consistently intense. Maybe he got a good sports psychologist?
The knock on Boyle is that he didn't care. He wasn't professional he thought that god somehow wanted him to have a career and he didn't need to work for it. He wasted his opportunities with the Kings ends up on the Rangers has a whole season with a grand total of SIX pts then found himself looking at the end of this career. Spends the first off-season in his life working and seems to be ending up as a decent 3rd line center.

These things happen. Guy finally actually starts to become a professional at 26 years old. But I think people are kidding if they'd wanted him to be sitting on the 4th line with 6pts for a season!

Quote:
Originally Posted by agentfouser View Post
As for Moulson, I don't know.
Moulson was done. Guy signs a one year two-way contract with the Isles for 575,000. That's about the league min. Hell, at the time the Isles just wanted someone alive to play they thought he'd be spending the year down in the AHL. All of a sudden he gets MASSIVE amounts of 1st line minutes and PP time and puts away 30 goals. Good for him! But no way on earth does he do it on a team that games matter. No way.

I think we really need to move beyond these types of threads. We've one of the deepest prospect groups in the whole NHL. We are going to lose high quality prospects just because of the numbers problem. No question in my mind that some of these guys are going to go on to long careers. If you want to pick the guy most likely to end up as a top-6 player on another team its Scott Parse. He has a legit scoring ability in the NHL and with the minutes he could be productive and he's UFA after next year.

Tadite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2011, 07:26 PM
  #21
SMoneyMonkey
Registered User
 
SMoneyMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LA/MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,506
vCash: 500
Eh, I didn't want this to be a "Oh look, we screwed up" thread but more a "could we have done things differently"/"Does this reveal a problem in the system".

I am personally starting to feel like our prospects don't get enough of a chance. I like Smyth, for instance, but what if somebody had stepped up and been better than Smyth. We'd be able to lose 6mil off the cap and a good prospect would have gotten some good ice time.

I know people are a bit hesitant because there's a theme in HF that every prospect is better than any regular NHLer and what not but, still, I feel like a lot weren't given a chance. Schenn should have been called up when Stoll got suspended, for instance. Clifford should have been given a chance to play with some decent skill. Holloway should really have been given some kind of shot at the NHL.

SMoneyMonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2011, 07:29 PM
  #22
Fishhead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,066
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SMoneyMonkey View Post

Basically, what should change to make sure we aren't wasting our prospect pool? We keep talking about our future while giving almost none of it a decent chance. I like that we let players develop but, I think we've got to take a few more risks.
That's the $1,000,000 question right there. And it's damn hard to answer, because all personnel choices have a chance to go bad. It's easy to say to move these prospects for high-end talent, but with the cap and the current parity in the league, that is nowhere near as common as it once was. You just aren't going to get that top talent for guys without NHL experience.

The way I see it, is the Kings have to find a way to get guys like Hickey, Voinov, Holloway, and so on into the lineup. Not only to see what they can do, but to ascertain their value to the organization and to other teams around the league. Then, you either move them in a package with solid roster players for a top talent, or you trade your roster players if you feel the young guys can replace them.

The difficulty is getting young players time in the NHL when every game counts, especially in the west. The amount of evaluation that has to be done is tremendous and it's easy to see why GMs and asst. GMs put in crazy amounts of time.

I agree that the Kings should be taking more risks, especially given their prowess at finding good players in the late rounds. The window is opening for this team, and it's the perfect time for a major move with our youth being ready.

Fishhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2011, 08:08 PM
  #23
The Black1963
Grit & Character
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Orange County CA
Country: United States
Posts: 13,293
vCash: 3733
Well, this is basically what I've said all of last year. Purcell's a natural RW but because of Brown, JW and Simmonds all being solid RW, Purcell had to play LW. So, trying to acclimate to the nhl in his first full season, not only did he have to endure playing against superior players but a different position than what he was accustomed to.

In case of Boyle, I said this last year too that he's basically a lot like Penner but can add some physical play. Boyle's got soft hands much like Penner and can finish but because he had played defense for the monarchs his first 30 games as a pro, he too had difficulty fitting in. We just needed to be more patient with both Purcell and Boyle but unfortunately DL nor TM didn't see it that way.

I'm actually ok with Purcell not being here but it's Boyle that I really wanted to see develop into a solid nhl center.

The Black1963 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2011, 08:15 PM
  #24
SMoneyMonkey
Registered User
 
SMoneyMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LA/MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,506
vCash: 500
So, should the Kings risk more and try to give the prospies more of a chance? It might mean a few dropped games but, we really should be able to have somebody in the running for the calder next year.

SMoneyMonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2011, 08:24 PM
  #25
tigermask48
Maniacal Laugh
 
tigermask48's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: R'Lyeh, Antarctica
Country: Antarctica
Posts: 2,780
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SMoneyMonkey View Post
All evidence points to yes.

I mean, has anybody been traded from the Kings and then played worse?
Are you serious? If you are:

Quincey, Priessing, Frolov, (not traded but let go as Moulson was) Visnovsky, Hersley, O'Sullivan all jump to mind as recent ones.
If you weren't serious then ignore the above list...

as for the origional question, Purcell has mostly been touched on already as it's a matter of the system and his linemates. Moulson is just a good player, with the right guys on a really bad team. If he's still here he's basically putting up half the numbers if not less due to the system. Boyle has more to do with his continued development. His improved skating and mobility (over this past off-season) has helped him to be more than just a big body with decent hands on the ice.

tigermask48 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 04:13 AM.

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.