HFBoards

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

Purcell & Moulson

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-15-2012, 07:37 PM
  #26
Johnny Utah
Registered User
 
Johnny Utah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Santa Monica, CA
Posts: 6,918
vCash: 500
I don't want to defend Lombardi and company too much on these decisions because they aren't the greatest but what do all these guys have in common? They are notoriously bad skaters and now playing in the East. Same with Boyle.

Moulson, Purcell and Boyle all had skating issues and now they are playing and somewhat succeeding in the Eastern conference...the slower of the two conferences.

Johnny Utah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2012, 07:56 PM
  #27
KingKopitar11*
Drew Doughty Eh?
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: staples center
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 16,319
vCash: 500
Look they sucked at the kings, or didnt fit with the program, Mistake? Maybe. But its all at the current situation there, not predictable, can't believe we are still talking about these guys. Move on. They aren't good, just the east coast that sucks.

KingKopitar11* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2012, 08:17 PM
  #28
greengiant91
Registered User
 
greengiant91's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 264
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingKopitar11 View Post
Look they sucked at the kings, or didnt fit with the program, Mistake? Maybe. But its all at the current situation there, not predictable, can't believe we are still talking about these guys. Move on. They aren't good, just the east coast that sucks.
This

greengiant91 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2012, 08:45 PM
  #29
savemefromtears
Bravo Viva la France
 
savemefromtears's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: City of Angels
Country: United States
Posts: 1,883
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsfan View Post
Maybe they can ask about Gabe Gauthier, Peter Harrold, Lauri Tukonen, John Zeiler, Matt Ryan, Shay Stephenson, Petr Kanko, Konstantin Pushkarev, Joey Mormina, Danny Roussin, Ned Lukacevic, Yutaka Fukufuji, Greg Hogeboom, Barry Brust, David Meckler, Jeff Likens, Vladimir Dravecky, Drew Bagnall, Patrik Hersley, Paul Crosty, Joe Piskula, Josh Kidd, Danny Taylor and Ryan Murphy while they are at it.
Grebeshkov and Tambellini say hi, too.


savemefromtears is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2012, 08:49 PM
  #30
Asheru
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 585
vCash: 500
Moulson's the one I'm upset about, not Purcell. Say it's a dead horse all you want, he has that nose for the net, and in his extremely limited minutes with the Kings, he produced. It's not all on Tavares, and we lack a top line LW so bad we've switched Brown over. He should be there with Kopi.

I know the East is weaker, too, but with three straight thirty goal seasons -- a rarity in the entire NHL -- it's hard to deny his hands and his talent.

Asheru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2012, 12:27 AM
  #31
Hollywood
Registered User
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 820
vCash: 500
Yeah, Teddy Purcell just by fluke has as good stats as Martin St. Louis... He has been sat out this year, played with lecavalier and others... He has gotten 1st stars, won games and been reasons for wins and sometimes losses...
Comes down to team/ system. If TB had LA's goaltending they would be a top 3 team in the league. Murray ruined our team. Dean has been feeling the Terry Murray stink for 7 months now...
Would Murray ever have traded for a publicity negative 12 months ago like Richards/ carter? haha.. no!. This is so not a DL move based on his history. Take off the blinkers... DL trust in TM ruined this team. If he saves his job it is simply because of Jeff Carter, the very guy who I wanted instead of Mike Richards. DL -TM ruined 2011-2012. bottom line.

Hollywood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2012, 01:21 AM
  #32
TwoForRoughing
Let's do it again!
 
TwoForRoughing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: UCLA, Los Angeles
Posts: 2,207
vCash: 500
I'm just gonna say this. If Purcell and Moulson are the two best guys your team has "lost," (to FA or for essentially nothing via trade) then your organization has done a damn good job.

edit: Moulson we did give up a little too early on. Purcell wasn't gonna fit on our squad, no matter which way you look at it. I guarantee if Purcell was on the Kings this year, he would have no more than 30 points. Not bitter about him at all. Moulson? That one hurts a bit more.

TwoForRoughing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2012, 01:44 AM
  #33
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
 
Ziggy Stardust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 30,883
vCash: 500
The organization does have a knack for trading players at the wrong time. If you go back further, you'll see that the Kings gave away the likes of Butch Goring, Billy Smith, Larry Murphy, Kevin Stevens (when he was originally drafted by the Kings), Garry Galley (first time around), Jay Wells, Alexei Zhitnik, Darryl Sydor, Yanic Perreault, Jason Blake, etc.

It seems ingrained in the Kings' rich history that they let a player go right before they break out of their shell and develop into players the team could have used. I'm sure you can make a similar list with other organizations giving up on players. For example, Moulson was originally drafted by the Pittsburgh Penguins. The Kings obtaining Norstrom and Laperriere for a group of over the hill players who were going to walk away as free agents. Getting Glen Murray for a washed up Ed Olczyk. They got Yanic Perreault and Eric Lacroix from the Leafs for practically nothing. They ended up with the best player in the three team trade that landed Justin Williams in LA.

Sometimes you hit homeruns, other times you throw an error. When you've been a GM for a very long time, you are bound to have both on your record. Hell, even the Wings have had their share of miscalculations, like when they waived Kyle Quincey right as he was ready to break out. They gave away Ville Leino for nothing. They traded Tomas Fleischmann and a 1st round pick that turned into Mike Green for a declining Robert Lang. But those miscalculations aren't remembered as much because the Wings are consistently performing at a higher level.

Believe me, if the Kings were in a better position in the standings and weren't struggling for offense, the names of Moulson and Purcell wouldn't be brought up as often as it is.

Ziggy Stardust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2012, 04:04 AM
  #34
Albi
Registered User
 
Albi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Lavena - Italy
Country: Italy
Posts: 4,625
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Albi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post
The organization does have a knack for trading players at the wrong time. If you go back further, you'll see that the Kings gave away the likes of Butch Goring, Billy Smith, Larry Murphy, Kevin Stevens (when he was originally drafted by the Kings), Garry Galley (first time around), Jay Wells, Alexei Zhitnik, Darryl Sydor, Yanic Perreault, Jason Blake, etc.

It seems ingrained in the Kings' rich history that they let a player go right before they break out of their shell and develop into players the team could have used. I'm sure you can make a similar list with other organizations giving up on players. For example, Moulson was originally drafted by the Pittsburgh Penguins. The Kings obtaining Norstrom and Laperriere for a group of over the hill players who were going to walk away as free agents. Getting Glen Murray for a washed up Ed Olczyk. They got Yanic Perreault and Eric Lacroix from the Leafs for practically nothing. They ended up with the best player in the three team trade that landed Justin Williams in LA.

Sometimes you hit homeruns, other times you throw an error. When you've been a GM for a very long time, you are bound to have both on your record. Hell, even the Wings have had their share of miscalculations, like when they waived Kyle Quincey right as he was ready to break out. They gave
away Ville Leino for nothing. They traded Tomas Fleischmann and a 1st round pick that turned into Mike Green for a declining Robert Lang. But those miscalculations aren't remembered as much because the Wings are consistently performing at a higher level.

Believe me, if the Kings were in a better position in the standings and weren't struggling for offense, the names of Moulson and Purcell wouldn't be brought up as often as it is.
spot on as usual Ziggy, great post

Albi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2012, 08:17 AM
  #35
Rorschach
33 #nottobedenied
 
Rorschach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 6,063
vCash: 500
The funny thing is nobody is giving props to DL for going out there, putting foot to a$$, and signing guys like Moulson, Purcell and Quincey. Some of them worked out, some didn't. But these guys weren't drafted or traded for, so we didn't lose any picks or anything else. They were pulled in to the organization by DL while 29 other GMs, some who also were trying and some who were asleep at the wheel, lost out.

DL went out and signed a lot of these guys. Some turned out to be Ersberg, some had success. But all were gotten for free, in terms of NHL assets. The fact that the above two guys didn't perform when they didn't have an elite center doesn't make them as big a losses as people are making out.

On the other hand, we really need DL to get Moller and Holloway back into the mix. Now that we roll three good centers, these guys can now get Moulson/Purcell success here in LA.

- R
.><.

Rorschach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2012, 08:48 AM
  #36
kingsfan
#SutterforanOscar
 
kingsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,940
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by savemefromtears View Post
Grebeshkov and Tambellini say hi, too.

I was just listing guys here under DL. Those two were under Taylor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoKingsGoo View Post
I'm just gonna say this. If Purcell and Moulson are the two best guys your team has "lost," (to FA or for essentially nothing via trade) then your organization has done a damn good job.

edit: Moulson we did give up a little too early on. Purcell wasn't gonna fit on our squad, no matter which way you look at it. I guarantee if Purcell was on the Kings this year, he would have no more than 30 points. Not bitter about him at all. Moulson? That one hurts a bit more.
This. Exactly. Go look around the league. We've been pretty blessed in terms of losing guys, and we've benefitted from getting guys too in a similar fashion (Quincey for example). It goes both ways, so I don't get why some posters feel the need to focus solely on the negative side of this issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rorschach View Post
The funny thing is nobody is giving props to DL for going out there, putting foot to a$$, and signing guys like Moulson, Purcell and Quincey. Some of them worked out, some didn't. But these guys weren't drafted or traded for, so we didn't lose any picks or anything else. They were pulled in to the organization by DL while 29 other GMs, some who also were trying and some who were asleep at the wheel, lost out.

DL went out and signed a lot of these guys. Some turned out to be Ersberg, some had success. But all were gotten for free, in terms of NHL assets. The fact that the above two guys didn't perform when they didn't have an elite center doesn't make them as big a losses as people are making out.

On the other hand, we really need DL to get Moller and Holloway back into the mix. Now that we roll three good centers, these guys can now get Moulson/Purcell success here in LA.

- R
.><.
Thanks R. I was going to post this myself. There's a reason these guys are free to sign in the first place. At least we have a GM who is willing to take a chance on these guys. Sometimes you get a Kyle QUincey, sometimes you get a Joe Piskula and sometimes you get a Matt Moulson. What's worse, that we actually signed Moulson and gave him about 30 NHL games to prove himself (which is a lot more than most unsigned 9th round draft picks would ever get) or if we hadn't signed him at all? At least we were ahead of the curve and recognized the talent and gave him (and Purcell) a chance.

kingsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2012, 12:50 PM
  #37
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
 
Ziggy Stardust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 30,883
vCash: 500
I'll add this about Purcell and Moulson (and touch on another player, Jason Blake). The turn of events for Purcell was unforeseen. Early on he was put in a top six role, playing his off-wing on a line with Stoll and Brown, but of course when the line went through a dry spell, Purcell was the easy target and was shifted around and put in various roles that limited his skills. Purcell was a very timid player who looked like he was afraid of his own shadow.

Purcell provided absolutely nothing on the Kings, and much of it could be blamed on the fact that he was miscast on a team that expected him to be a player he wasn't: one who was going to grind it out in the corners and be defensively responsible. He looked like a player who was afraid of making mistakes, and so when the Kings sought some veteran help at the deadline, they moved a player who was deemed expendable. Purcell wasn't going to help the Kings out in their stretch run and it appears that they had other young forwards likely pegged ahead of him (namely Parse and Moller).

As for Matt Moulson, I really am puzzled as to why the Kings didn't attempt to retain him when he became a Group VI free agent. I thought he worked well in the short amount of time he played in. He was playing on a line with Handzus and Frolov, once again, a line whose primary responsibility was to be the top checking unit. Moulson seemed to know where to position himself to find the puck and I think if you look at his production given his ice time with the Kings, he was actually looking like a player who could perform at this level. This was when they first brought him up in his rookie season in 2007-08. He was sparsely used the following season, only appearing in 7 games. And that was that with Moulson.

I don't think they ever gave him a fair shot to make it. He's now had three consecutive seasons in which he scored 30 or more goals. That's a tough pill to swallow and once again, we can attribute Terry Murray and his stubborn use of talent for letting this player get away.

The reason I wanted to bring up Jason Blake in this discussion is that similar to Purcell and Moulson, he was put in a position that he was destined to fail. After an impressive debut with the Kings (scoring in his first NHL game), the Kings stuck him on the fourth line for much of his career with the Kings. They promptly dealt him to the Islanders in 2001 for a 5th round pick. The Kings thought he was undersized and didn't think he worked well as a fourth line forward, and guess what, that's not the type of player he is. The following season with the Islanders, Blake would go on to net 25 goals and 55 points. He'd end up scoring 20-plus goals in four consecutive seasons with the Islanders, scoring as high as 40 goals in his last season with the team before departing as a free agent and signing with the Leafs.

While management takes the brunt of the blame for letting these players go, you have to take into consideration the position these managers were in due to the way their coaches used their talent. Purcell and Jason Blake had little to no value as a result of their miscast roles. Moulson wasn't a sought after free agent due to the way he was used in LA. Believe me, if he was highly sought after when he left the Kings, he would have received more lucrative offers. They moved on to better opportunities where those clubs can afford to put them in a more prolific role and in a position for them to succeed. They were not going to receive those same opportunities with the Kings.

Ziggy Stardust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2012, 01:04 PM
  #38
Jason Lewis
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Jason Lewis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,014
vCash: 500
This topic is new, and has never been discussed before.

Jason Lewis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2012, 01:16 PM
  #39
Gentle Ben Kenobi
That's no moon......
 
Gentle Ben Kenobi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Tatooine
Posts: 19,022
vCash: 863
Every org has these.

Gentle Ben Kenobi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2012, 01:38 PM
  #40
Jason Lewis
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Jason Lewis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,014
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Bunny Foo Foo View Post
Every org has these.
Seriously. It's ridiculous how easy people think it is to project players 3 and 4 years into the future. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes you hold onto a player who sucks, and people complain. Sometimes you trade a player away who sucks here and is good somewhere else and people complain.

It's not easy being a GM most times....

I think most fans see it like this



when in reality it's kind of like this


Jason Lewis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2012, 02:11 PM
  #41
kingsfan
#SutterforanOscar
 
kingsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,940
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaygokings View Post
Seriously. It's ridiculous how easy people think it is to project players 3 and 4 years into the future. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes you hold onto a player who sucks, and people complain.
So this. Guaranteed if Parse lights it up somewhere down the road, someone inside the organization will get blamed for it on this message baord, even if it's just the training staff. More likley DL for hiring the trainging staff that didn't have enough hot glue to keep putting Parse back together.

There was virtaully no posts of support for keeping Moulson or Purcell when they left, especially Purcell, but now the Kings are mentally retarded for not having kept them, all because some fans now have hindsight.

kingsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2012, 03:03 PM
  #42
johnjm22
16,005
 
johnjm22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Barstow, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,387
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsfan View Post
There was virtaully no posts of support for keeping Moulson or Purcell when they left, especially Purcell, but now the Kings are mentally retarded for not having kept them, all because some fans now have hindsight.
It's not about whether or not we should have kept them, it's about whether or not we did a good job developing them when they were here. Could a better coaching staff have gotten more out of them? Could they have developed in to six forwards here if we had a different coach?

I realize this situation happens all the time in sports; young players often don't work out with one organization, but end up blossoming with another team after they get a change of scenery. The reason why Purcell/Moulson is such a big deal is because the organization wasn't able to develop a top 6 winger during Murray's entire tenure.

It's evidence (not proof), the TM did a poor job of developing the offensive game of our young players. He clearly didn't get the most out of Simmonds (no PP time, never gave him significant consideration for a scoring role in spite of the fact Wayne was one of our best point producers at even strength). If he didn't get the most out of Wayne, did he get the most out of Purcell, Moulson? or even Kopitar?

Sometimes I wonder what would have happened to Brown if TM would have been DL's first coaching hire.

johnjm22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2012, 01:08 PM
  #43
kingsfan
#SutterforanOscar
 
kingsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,940
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnjm22 View Post
It's not about whether or not we should have kept them, it's about whether or not we did a good job developing them when they were here. Could a better coaching staff have gotten more out of them? Could they have developed in to six forwards here if we had a different coach?

I realize this situation happens all the time in sports; young players often don't work out with one organization, but end up blossoming with another team after they get a change of scenery. The reason why Purcell/Moulson is such a big deal is because the organization wasn't able to develop a top 6 winger during Murray's entire tenure.

It's evidence (not proof), the TM did a poor job of developing the offensive game of our young players. He clearly didn't get the most out of Simmonds (no PP time, never gave him significant consideration for a scoring role in spite of the fact Wayne was one of our best point producers at even strength). If he didn't get the most out of Wayne, did he get the most out of Purcell, Moulson? or even Kopitar?

Sometimes I wonder what would have happened to Brown if TM would have been DL's first coaching hire.
Maybe, but I'm not convinced, especially using Simmonds as an example.

Simmonds didn't get a lot of PP time, I agree, but it's not like he was a 27 year old vet when he got here. He jumped to the NHL from junior and really was in a situation like Clifford, just a bit more glorified. It's debatable that he deserved PP time.

Besides, isn't the PP Kompon's choice? I'm no fan of TM, but if there's anyone thing we ALL agree on about the coaching staff, it's that Kompon needs to go.

kingsfan 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 08:13 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.