They can repeat, but I really doubt that they do repeat.
Maybe not having training camp start as early will help them, but then you are going to have a fully rested Vancouver, Pittsburgh, Boston, etc, to deal with, it just doesn't seem likely to me.
They definitely had one of the more dominant (and shorter) playoffs in recent memory. They have a very good team and are pretty much set in all areas, maybe the D could make some minor upgrades but overall the team is very talented in all three main positions.
They do have a shot at repeating, but I doubt it simply because the likelihood of any team repeating in general is slim. There is so much parity in the league (after all, the Kings finished 8th in the conference) that these days it's hard to have one team absolutely dominate everyone else and win multiple championships.
So for that reason, I'll say no, but obviously I won't rule out the possibility.
I think you're underestimating the significance Quick, their Conn Smythe-winning goaltender, had.
After he dragged them to the playoffs (Hart worthy IMO), Quick stayed consistent and still ended up as the 3rd or 4th best player throughout the post season. Smythe be damned, the Kings would have gotten trashed if Kopitar, Doughty, and Brown didn't play phenomenal in every game. They also managed to stay healthy and get a bunch of production from their bottom lines.
Quick was great, but teams could barely get the puck into the neutral zone because LA sent two forwards in deep and had the third hover around the blue line. If they managed to get the puck out and into the neutral zone, guys like Doughty and Green either nullified nearly everything that came in. Teams couldn't get hardly any sustained pressure, much less hold the puck in the Kings zone. The backside pressure from all 4 lines was overwhelming. Seriously, they were as dominant as any team I've seen in the last few years in the post season. On top of that they stayed healthy and Quick did his job.
Vancouver was missing their lead scorer for most of the series(Daniel) and had their second leading scorer(Kesler) playing with a torn labrum. St. Louis was missing their franchise defenseman(Pietrangelo) and had their starting goalie(Halak) injured as well. They may not have been "weak", but they certainly weren't in top form like the Kings were.
Pick any two of Doughty, Quick, Brown, or Kopitar to be injured and the Kings don't come close to winning it.
Bitter Vancouver fan is bitter. Nobody is healthy is the playoffs.
The Kings had two injured forwards (Carter and Gagne) and still soundly beat Vancouver. But keep making excuses.
You can keep living in your make-believe world or you can come to grips with the fact that all their absences proved is that the Canucks lack depth. That's all.
Take Toews off the 2010 Hawks: Do they still come out of the West? Take Crosby off the 2009 Pens: Do they still win it all? Subtract Zetterberg from the 2008 Red Wings: Are they still Cup Champions?
Last time I checked, those teams don't lack depth. Take the best player off any team and you're not going to replace him with some minor league kid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dingo
Bitter Vancouver fan is bitter. Nobody is healthy is the playoffs.
The Kings had two injured forwards (Carter and Gagne) and still soundly beat Vancouver. But keep making excuses.
I wouldn't trade Daniel Sedin for Carter and Gagne together. Throw in an injured Kesler and Vancouver was in tough.
Last edited by nowhereman: 11-14-2012 at 12:36 PM.
I would say they have a great team to repeat. I just highly doubt they will survive and beat up the West like they did last year. The West I believe has a lot more physical teams that can match up well with the Kings. Seeing as they are the cup champion every team is going to bring their A game to make a statement. In my opinion the East has more of a chance to have someone repeat as cup champions than the West.
I give them a 1 in 30 chance to winning the cup. The nu:NHL is proving that anything can happen. Islanders could go on a 4 year cup run, though unlikely, it could happen... just like the Kings could win again.
This might be funny, but I actually forgot who won the cup until I saw this thread. Lol
Except for Boston and Detroit, so that's 2 out of the previous 4, who were better teams and still didn't win the following year.
Not arguing that the Kings will repeat, but the Kings literally have the exact same roster as they did last season, and Boston did lose a few pieces. Maybe not key ones, but it's still not an identical roster.
My memory for Detroit isn't great, so I can't really speak to them. The point is, the poster I replied to said that every team says that after winning the cup, but LA's case is unusual because there were no departures or additions to the roster.
Not arguing that the Kings will repeat, but the Kings literally have the exact same roster as they did last season, and Boston did lose a few pieces. Maybe not key ones, but it's still not an identical roster.
My memory for Detroit isn't great, so I can't really speak to them. The point is, the poster I replied to said that every team says that after winning the cup, but LA's case is unusual because there were no departures or additions to the roster.
Detroit lost Dallas Drake (a fourth liner), Hasek (backup), and added Hossa (enough said).
You cannot cite them gaining or losing players are a positive or negative, because different teams respond to different roster changes (or lack thereof) in different ways.
We will see how the Kings roster looks once we have a season. Until then, all this about how they will be better or worse because they have the exact same roster as last year is just guessing.
Detroit lost Dallas Drake (a fourth liner), Hasek (backup), and added Hossa (enough said).
You cannot cite them gaining or losing players are a positive or negative, because different teams respond to different roster changes (or lack thereof) in different ways.
We will see how the Kings roster looks once we have a season. Until then, all this about how they will be better or worse because they have the exact same roster as last year is just guessing.
Fair enough, but the only reason I mentioned it was LA is unique in that there really was no movement to speak of. I don't think it really matters towards their chances. It's a fresh season and anything can happen before the playoffs - if they're even held. I think they're favorites to win the division but a repeat cup personally I'm not betting on at this point.
The Kings soundly beat whomever was in front of them. Don't they get some style points for that?
I would think the Stanley Cup is all the style points they'd need. It's not like there's going to be an asterisk next to their name on the Cup because they might have had some favorable situations. Carolina is another team I thought had some breaks go their way during their Cup win, but their name is on the Cup the same as every other team. Though, to credit the Kings, I thought Los Angeles was more convincing in their wins. A Cup is a Cup.
I think if they make some changes here and there they will. Not just minor, a significant upgrade on either Forward or D should be made. If they just stand pat with the same group then not a chance.
If there is a season this year I think the Kings have a better chance than most teams due to the extended break and the ability of all the players who were banged up in the playoffs to heal for much longer than usual after a cup run.
However, if there is no season at all then I doubt it because LA has quite a few UFAs/RFAs for the 13/14 season and while they are not their key guys, those role players are necessary to win cups too.
Which team that LA eliminated was a worse team then MTL that took Boston to seven? Or a similar Van team that LA took care of in the first round but Boston to seven.
Stiffer competition my ass.
Comparing Boston to LA is laughable. Sure, the Kings weren't as spectacular as the 08 Wings or 07 Ducks, but the Bruins scraping out a cup win with 3 game 7's and the most losses of any cup winner in history is not nearly as good as the Kings who went 16-4 with better competition
LA might have avoided D Sedin/Pietrangelo for a few games of their respective series, Halak for the 2nd round, but the Bruins had the pleasure to not play against Pronger, Markov, Gorges, Pacioretty, Hamhuis (6.5 games), Samuelsson, Kubina, Carter (1/2 series)
The Kings might be able to if they actually had the chance to. Unfortunately, even if the season does happen, and the Kings were to repeat, people would discredit it because of the lockout.
Comparing Boston to LA is laughable. Sure, the Kings weren't as spectacular as the 08 Wings or 07 Ducks, but the Bruins scraping out a cup win with 3 game 7's and the most losses of any cup winner in history is not nearly as good as the Kings who went 16-4 with better competition
LA might have avoided D Sedin/Pietrangelo for a few games of their respective series, Halak for the 2nd round, but the Bruins had the pleasure to not play against Pronger, Markov, Gorges, Pacioretty, Hamhuis (6.5 games), Samuelsson, Kubina, Carter (1/2 series)
I think it's laughable too. The 2011 Bruins would have beaten the 2012 Kings handily. 2012 Kings were the weakest cup winning squad since the 2006 Hurricanes.
Don't forget that Kesler was playing with one arm too (torn labrum, still on IR after surgery), it wasn't just Daniel that was out for most of that first round. Those are two key forwards that were nowhere near 100% The Kings didn't play the same Canucks team that took the Bruins to 7. Take two top forwards out of the Kings line-up (say Kopitar and Brown), and they are out early. (No, Gagne isn't a top forward anymore, hasn't been for a couple of years) For those who cry 'lack of depth!', hypothetically which depth players would have replaced Kopitar and Brown?
For the Blues, a young team that over-achieved greatly during the regular season, losing your #1 Halak and #1 D-man for any stretch is devastating. Elliot had great stats in a sheltered starts behing a stingy Blues system that year, but was mediocre for the Sens. This was a much bigger loss for the Blues than Kings fans would like to admit. The Blues play a low scoring system and depend on goaltending to keep them in games, they weren't built to turn the offense on like that. What luck for Kings fans, although they are loathe to admit it.
Phoenix, really? The Coyotes in the conference final? They were only a couple points up on the 8th place Kings team. Hardly an upset there for the Kings. No wonder most posters were referring to a dull playoffs. That was the weakest WCF since Anaheim vs Minnesota in 2003.
New Jersey, the 6th place team that got taken to game 7 by a Florida franchise with goaltending problems and was just happy to be there. NJ had their own luck, drawing a Philly team that forgot how to play D after the Penguins series in the 2nd round, and got by an exhausted Rangers squad in the ECF. This was hardly a big upset either for the Kings.
First two rounds, Kings draw top seed teams, but with key injuries to their top performers. Deserves an *Asterisk. The last two, they played teams that were much weaker draws than they could have been. What if Nashville had gotten over their chemistry problems? What if NY Rangers had won the ECF? What if the Penguins hadn't imploded defensively in an emotional series against their rivals? What if Tea Party Timmy hadn't become a headcase on the Bruins? All the top offensive-minded teams were out by round 2. That's quite a bit of luck to have along the way.
A cup win is a cup win, but I'm hardly convinced that they are the favorites to repeat going into next season, whenever that ends up being.
Ugh.
2012 Kings were the weakest cup winning squad since the 2006 Hurricanes.
