They don't like making statements like these. It makes them susceptible to objective evaluation of their opinion in the future. It is much safer to just wait, see what happens and then criticize something that has already happened.
Your question is very valid, though, since "black hole" is a pretty strong term for current Kings situation. If this is black hole then I don't know what was the situation with Craig Conroy being our top center and Dan Beachball Cloutier being our starting goalie.
ya, you know what cause quite frankly, I'm talking a lot of crap and he's talking a lot of crap. Seeing as he's absolutely certain that they're not a playoff team, I'm guessing he's looking at an early elimination by April. So I say, let's stop talking and let's start backing it up while in good spirits of team fan camaraderie.
Let's bet that the Kings will or will not make playoffs. Loser has to buy the other a ticket to a game (next year or playoffs) in the 200's section of Loser's choice + a meal at Yardhouse and 3 drinks before the game.
There's so much talk about who knows more and who predicted what not, so let's prove it.
They don't like making statements like these. It makes them susceptible to objective evaluation of their opinion in the future. It is much safer to just wait, see what happens and then criticize something that has already happened.
Your question is very valid, though, since "black hole" is a pretty strong term for current Kings situation. If this is black hole then I don't know what was the situation with Craig Conroy being our top center and Dan Beachball Cloutier being our starting goalie.
The other side of the coin comes from those that seem to value potential over objective results. The answer always seems to be that it doesn't matter what is happening now because better days are ahead if you're just patient.
Will the Kings make the playoffs? IMO, it will be very close - if they do make it, their demise will be quick and decisive.
I don't think that you are defining "black hole" as we are - a team is in the "black hole" when they barely miss the playoff or aren't good enough to make a difference in the playoffs if they do qualify. As a result they get a mid 1st round draft choice - missing out on the majority of the impact players, so they don't improve much.
To put it in perspective, the crappy 2005/6 Kings team that led to the Lombardi era had 43 points after 35 games - this team with "potential" has 37...
The other side of the coin comes from those that seem to value potential over objective results. The answer always seems to be that it doesn't matter what is happening now because better days are ahead if you're just patient.
Will the Kings make the playoffs? IMO, it will be very close - if they do make it, their demise will be quick and decisive.
I don't think that you are defining "black hole" as we are - a team is in the "black hole" when they barely miss the playoff or aren't good enough to make a difference in the playoffs if they do qualify. As a result they get a mid 1st round draft choice - missing out on the majority of the impact players, so they don't improve much.
To put it in perspective, the crappy 2005/6 Kings team that led to the Lombardi era had 43 points after 35 games - this team with "potential" has 37...
You talk about results,
And then you ignore the results, I don't get it.
Year 1 under Lombardi, No starting caliber Goaltender
Year 6 under Lombardi, arguably top 10 goaltender, and one of the best backups in the league,
Is that a positive result?
Year 1 under Lombardi, no #1 D
Year 6 under Lombardi, not only a #1 D, we have a guy who could be a #1 D on most other teams, and an up coming top pair guy in Voynov, and one of the deepest D's in the league.
Is that a positive result?
Year 1 under Lombardi, no #1 C
Year 6 under Lombardi, one of the best 1-2-3 down the middle in the league,
Is that a positive result?
So tell me, if you want to focus on results, why don't you focus on ALL the results?
Year 1 under Lombardi, No starting caliber Goaltender
Year 6 under Lombardi, arguably top 10 goaltender, and one of the best backups in the league,
Is that a positive result?
Positive step? Yes
Made a difference in the standings yet? No
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjmay
Year 1 under Lombardi, no #1 D
Year 6 under Lombardi, not only a #1 D, we have a guy who could be a #1 D on most other teams, and an up coming top pair guy in Voynov, and one of the deepest D's in the league.
Is that a positive result?
Positive step? Yes
Made a difference in the standings yet? No
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjmay
Year 1 under Lombardi, no #1 C
Year 6 under Lombardi, one of the best 1-2-3 down the middle in the league,
Is that a positive result?
...with the 30th ranked offense in the entire NHL? Seriously?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjmay
So tell me, if you want to focus on results, why don't you focus on ALL the results?
Just saying...
You are confusing positive steps or improvement with results
Until they start assigning Stanley Cups for potential, I'll have to stick with the record on the ice. Subjective "results" aka positive steps are nice to make the fans feel better when the team loses, but they don't compare to home ice advantage in the playoffs, playoff series wins, etc.
Year 1 under Lombardi, No starting caliber Goaltender
Year 6 under Lombardi, arguably top 10 goaltender, and one of the best backups in the league,
Is that a positive result?
Year 1 under Lombardi, no #1 D
Year 6 under Lombardi, not only a #1 D, we have a guy who could be a #1 D on most other teams, and an up coming top pair guy in Voynov, and one of the deepest D's in the league.
Is that a positive result?
Year 1 under Lombardi, no #1 C
Year 6 under Lombardi, one of the best 1-2-3 down the middle in the league,
Is that a positive result?
So tell me, if you want to focus on results, why don't you focus on ALL the results?
Just saying...
You realize that Lombardi inherited the starting goalie and the #1 center, right?
And given Lombardi's obsessive focus on D, I would expect the Kings to have one of the best defenses in the league. And to be fair, Lombardi has made several bone-headed moves in pursuit of defensemen (with Hickey being Exhibit 1).
They don't like making statements like these. It makes them susceptible to objective evaluation of their opinion in the future. It is much safer to just wait, see what happens and then criticize something that has already happened.
Your question is very valid, though, since "black hole" is a pretty strong term for current Kings situation. If this is black hole then I don't know what was the situation with Craig Conroy being our top center and Dan Beachball Cloutier being our starting goalie.
Interesting how the talk now is just of making the playoffs...at the beginning of the year it was about winning the Stanley Cup. And it took only 3 months.
Watching Cloutier was painful...who was the idiot GM that paid a 2nd and a 3rd for that guy...
Positive step? Yes
Made a difference in the standings yet? No
Positive step? Yes
Made a difference in the standings yet? No
...with the 30th ranked offense in the entire NHL? Seriously?
You are confusing positive steps or improvement with results
Until they start assigning Stanley Cups for potential, I'll have to stick with the record on the ice. Subjective "results" aka positive steps are nice to make the fans feel better when the team loses, but they don't compare to home ice advantage in the playoffs, playoff series wins, etc.
Question for you,
Do you think the powerhouse teams like Vancouver, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Detroit...do you think they just...came out of nowhere, or was there....positive steps....taken?
You realize that Lombardi inherited the starting goalie and the #1 center, right?
And given Lombardi's obsessive focus on D, I would expect the Kings to have one of the best defenses in the league. And to be fair, Lombardi has made several bone-headed moves in pursuit of defensemen (with Hickey being Exhibit 1).
You do realize that they were, 18 at the time right and nowhere near being what they are now....right?
Or do you think they would become what they are now no matter what happened, no matter who DL brought in to coach or mentor them, etc?
So you are willing to call Hickey a bust and the kid is...22.
Interesting how the talk now is just of making the playoffs...at the beginning of the year it was about winning the Stanley Cup. And it took only 3 months.
Watching Cloutier was painful...who was the idiot GM that paid a 2nd and a 3rd for that guy...
All fans talk about winning the Stanley Cup at the beginning of the year.....seriously bud, do you really think anyone wouldn't talk about that?
You never answered my question....
Why are you a fan of a team you profess does nothing right and never will....? Is it the colour scheme?
You realize that Lombardi inherited the starting goalie and the #1 center, right?
And given Lombardi's obsessive focus on D, I would expect the Kings to have one of the best defenses in the league. And to be fair, Lombardi has made several bone-headed moves in pursuit of defensemen (with Hickey being Exhibit 1).
You do realize that while Quick was inherited, [and Bernier later drafted] they are BOTH products of Lombardi's development system, something no other GM in Kings history knew anything about [see Storr,Jamie].
Do you think the powerhouse teams like Vancouver, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Detroit...do you think they just...came out of nowhere, or was there....positive steps....taken?
Just curious...
What were the positive steps that Chicago took on their slow build to winning a Cup? They were awful for a long time - they were essentially even with the Kings when Lombardi took over. Suddenly they went from 71 points to 88 to 104 points and a loss in the Conference Finals followed by their Cup win in 2010. That's not positive steps, but giant leaps compared to anything we've seen with the Kings
Those are results - not just positive steps with little to show for it other than "wait until next year"
You do realize that while Quick was inherited, [and Bernier later drafted] they are BOTH products of Lombardi's development system, something no other GM in Kings history knew anything about [see Storr,Jamie].
Most goalies don't come to prominence with the team that drafted them. There are a few notable exceptions, but more develop essentially on their own than within any one particular system.
Mario Lessard did quite well in 1980/81 as a Kings draft choice, so it isn't quite as bleak as you make it out to be
All fans talk about winning the Stanley Cup at the beginning of the year.....seriously bud, do you really think anyone wouldn't talk about that?
You never answered my question....
Why are you a fan of a team you profess does nothing right and never will....? Is it the colour scheme?
The answer is quite simple...IMO Lombardi has done a very mediocre job in the last 5 years. I see a team at the high-end of the salary cap which is currently out of the playoffs and dead last (or close to it) in scoring. I see a team that has no one to call up from the minors when a top forward goes down. I see a team with two guys (Lewis and Richardson) playing in the top 6 who have NO business on a scoring line. I see a team which would be battling Anaheim and Colombus for dead last in the conference without incredible goaltending from Quick.
In short, I see a team which the fans should not be satisfied with in year 6 of Lombardi's tenure. If you are happy with this team then so be it. You shouldn't be though.
Will they make the playoffs? Maybe. But really, unless Quick holds the opposition to 1 goal or less in every playoff game, who cares?
You do realize that while Quick was inherited, [and Bernier later drafted] they are BOTH products of Lombardi's development system, something no other GM in Kings history knew anything about [see Storr,Jamie].
So let me get this straight...Quick played 71 games in a little over 1 season in the minor leagues and you are claiming that it was Lombardi's development system that made him what he is today? Seriously???????
Why are you a fan of a team you profess does nothing right and never will....? Is it the colour scheme?
I'll try to answer for TomD, although I'm sure that you won't understand it...
Both of us have been fans of this franchise since long before Tim Leiweke started lying to us in the 90s - long before Uncle Phil wrote the check to buy the Kings out of the bargain basement.
We have invested DECADES and thousands of dollars in this franchise - AEG is just the current caretaker. You won't understand or agree with this, but it is as much our team as it is theirs. They have done all that they can to ignore the history of this franchise - or at least trivialize it. We are both trying to preserve the history, traditions, and integrity of the Kings while AEG does everything they can to cheapen and minimize it. You will all poo-poo this, but there was hockey in LA before Gretzky. I've almost given up trying to defend it because so few of you were around to appreciate just how special it was. There were about 8,000-10,000 of us who were fanatical supporters of this franchise when no one else cared. If we wouldn't have supported some of the good teams and awful teams, you'd all be fighting over which team away from LA you would be supporting.
I'm sure that I'll get all sorts of grief over this, but I don't care. If you weren't there at the time, you don't have a clue. I just know that those of us lucky enough to be around during those days were truly blessed with something very special. I don't expect the rest of you to understand, but that's your loss
I'll try to answer for TomD, although I'm sure that you won't understand it...
Both of us have been fans of this franchise since long before Tim Leiweke started lying to us in the 90s - long before Uncle Phil wrote the check to buy the Kings out of the bargain basement.
We have invested DECADES and thousands of dollars in this franchise - AEG is just the current caretaker. You won't understand or agree with this, but it is as much our team as it is theirs. They have done all that they can to ignore the history of this franchise - or at least trivialize it. We are both trying to preserve the history, traditions, and integrity of the Kings while AEG does everything they can to cheapen and minimize it. You will all poo-poo this, but there was hockey in LA before Gretzky. I've almost given up trying to defend it because so few of you were around to appreciate just how special it was. There were about 8,000-10,000 of us who were fanatical supporters of this franchise when no one else cared. If we wouldn't have supported some of the good teams and awful teams, you'd all be fighting over which team away from LA you would be supporting.
I'm sure that I'll get all sorts of grief over this, but I don't care. If you weren't there at the time, you don't have a clue. I just know that those of us lucky enough to be around during those days were truly blessed with something very special. I don't expect the rest of you to understand, but that's your loss
You don't think we know how you feel? You don't think we're still the minority fan base in LA who invested decades and thousands of dollars in support of the good or awful team? We're sitting in the same ****** seat as you. Our hearts break the same way yours does when the team underperforms. I'm tired of the same crap as you man. Doesn't mean you give up and ride every downfall as validation for your personal frustration.
What were the positive steps that Chicago took on their slow build to winning a Cup? They were awful for a long time - they were essentially even with the Kings when Lombardi took over. Suddenly they went from 71 points to 88 to 104 points and a loss in the Conference Finals followed by their Cup win in 2010. That's not positive steps, but giant leaps compared to anything we've seen with the Kings
Those are results - not just positive steps with little to show for it other than "wait until next year"
PSP, if you keep writing posts like you have with that "I will tell you but you won't understand it anway," nobody will talk to you anymore. In the end you will be alone with tomd. Two smartest people on the forum and all you will be able to do is crying. Is that what you want, is that how you imagine forum to be? There is no point in having a discussion when one side doesn't respect the opinion of the other side.
As for this Chicago case. There is no doubt that Lombardi has slightly different way of building a team and it is possible to have a discussion whether it's better. Lombardi has stated many times that he wants to have a team that would compete for the Cup for many years. Chicago built a team for one moment. The year that they won the Cup was their second and last attempt. They were lucky to make playoffs next season. But they did make it, I will give you that.
However I am sure that if Kings made the same kind of push and didn't make it, you guys would be complaining even more.
I somehow think that if the Kings are really close to winning it all, Dean will make an extra push, similar to what Chicago did. He wants that Cup just as much as the fans do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomd
Will they make the playoffs? Maybe. But really, unless Quick holds the opposition to 1 goal or less in every playoff game, who cares?
Well, you are worse than PSP when it comes to avoiding making clear statements. At least he said "it will be close" which predicts couple of points difference on either side. You haven't been able to do even that. If the Kings end 15 points outside, you will say "I told you so, I was right all along" and if they make the playoffs - hey you SAID "maybe".
I am not sure if you really see difference between you and me? Let me tell you that if Kings don't make the playoffs I will be just as pissed off as you and I will be just as critical as you. And if it's true that Kings get kicked out of the playoffs with opponents scoring 2 goals in average, I will be just as critical as you. But still we disagree... on something. So what is the thing that we disagree on?
Is it? When they won the title I remember I was talking to someone about what happens to Chicago now. He thought they would be contenders next season as well. I said that they will struggle to make the playoffs. I was correct, they only made it in last round and they were lucky. They were NOT contenders. Are they contenders this season? I don't think they are. Will they be contenders next season? I'm afraid not. It's a good team, just not good enough to win it all.
But of course my argumentation is not as good as yours.
What were the positive steps that Chicago took on their slow build to winning a Cup? They were awful for a long time - they were essentially even with the Kings when Lombardi took over. Suddenly they went from 71 points to 88 to 104 points and a loss in the Conference Finals followed by their Cup win in 2010. That's not positive steps, but giant leaps compared to anything we've seen with the Kings
Those are results - not just positive steps with little to show for it other than "wait until next year"
What were the positive steps that Chicago took?
ReallY?
Let's see, drafting Kane and Toews in back to back years, that surely wasn't positive.
Making a shrewd trade for Patrick Sharp...again, not positive.
Developing Seabrook and Keith not positive.
Grooming Crawford not positive...
Really?
Wow...I can't believe you think that Chicago didn't have any positive steps that they just appeared on the scene....
The answer is quite simple...IMO Lombardi has done a very mediocre job in the last 5 years. I see a team at the high-end of the salary cap which is currently out of the playoffs and dead last (or close to it) in scoring. I see a team that has no one to call up from the minors when a top forward goes down. I see a team with two guys (Lewis and Richardson) playing in the top 6 who have NO business on a scoring line. I see a team which would be battling Anaheim and Colombus for dead last in the conference without incredible goaltending from Quick.
In short, I see a team which the fans should not be satisfied with in year 6 of Lombardi's tenure. If you are happy with this team then so be it. You shouldn't be though.
Will they make the playoffs? Maybe. But really, unless Quick holds the opposition to 1 goal or less in every playoff game, who cares?
Fair enough, answer me this though,
Where do you get your expertise that Lewis and Richardson have no business playing in the top six? Where do you get your expertise that tells you LA would be battling Anaheim and Columbus without Quick?
What is it that you know, that every other hockey person in the LA organization doesn't?
Can you call them up and let them in on whatever it is that secret is?
