Frolov is a good 2nd line LW. Expecting him to be anything more is a problem with talent scouting. Andy Murray and Dave Taylor forced him into the #1 LW role due to bad decisions. Frolov isn't fast, he doesn't have a good shot, he doesn't pass. Instead of trading another young King player Lombardi should go out and get a real #1 LW and let Frolov do his thing on the 2nd line. That solves 2 problems since the Kings 2nd line is 1 of the worst I have ever seen in the NHL as of now.
Bingo. I think trading Frolov is stupid. Let him flourish on the 2nd line.
I can't believe you would propose something like that. If I was going to offer that I would try to get Gomez with it not Gionta. Gionta got a lot of those goals because of Gomez.
I can't believe you would propose something like that. If I was going to offer that I would try to get Gomez with it not Gionta. Gionta got a lot of those goals because of Gomez.
Oh really? How many Devils games did you watch last year? I'm curious to know.
You right, you CAN'T argue that IT IS an upgrade. Guiguere's a sieve, sucks in the shootout, and to trade Frolov for what is essentially the ducks garbage is a joke.
Regardless of Frolov's work ethic (as if anyone REALLY knows), a very defensively responsible forward who puts up 50-60 points is well worth a couple million per season.
Frolov has what, another 4 years on his contract? Are we forgetting he just turned 24 a month ago? His point totals have increased from 31 to 48 to 54 points. His goal totals have been up and down in those three seasons with 14 goals his rookie year, 24 his sophomore year and 21 this past season.
BUT, he had 21 goals in 69 games and in his sophomore year had 24 in 77.
As already mentioned, Frolov isn't a #1 LW (yet) and he was shoved into that position by his 2nd season in the league. Let's give him a chance to see how he does with a new coaching staff guiding him.
You right, you CAN'T argue that IT IS an upgrade. Guiguere's a sieve, sucks in the shootout, and to trade Frolov for what is essentially the ducks garbage is a joke.
Also, the 4 year thing was basically about all of the young players coming up through the Kings organization who can't become UFA's until they've played 5 years pro.
It's certainly possible, but how can you be sure? Not all players are eligible to be UFAs in 4 years. For example, Cammalleri could be one in as few as 3 years. It just seems to me like a range (ex. saying "in 3-5 years") would've been better if he really didn't have any particular player in mind.
BTW, I'm not sure where you got "5 years pro." Players can be UFAs after 7 NHL seasons (the lockout year counts as 1) or at age 27 with 4 seasons.
I see it like this. A lot of players weren't playing up to their capabilites when AM and DT were in town. A lot of guys were playing out of their element. You can't crucify one or two players over o.j. and muffins.
I'm not trying to defend Alex, but you have to see what MC can do before you sell the farm. I mean come on.
DL made a lot of meaningful comments Saturday and a lot of them made entirely too much sense. It's too early to get the knee jerk reactions flowing here.
A couple folks need to step away from the franchise apocalypse button and give somethings a chance to work or play themselves out first.
It's certainly possible, but how can you be sure? Not all players are eligible to be UFAs in 4 years. For example, Cammalleri could be one in as few as 3 years. It just seems to me like a range (ex. saying "in 3-5 years") would've been better if he really didn't have any particular player in mind.
BTW, I'm not sure where you got "5 years pro." Players can be UFAs after 7 NHL seasons (the lockout year counts as 1) or at age 27 with 4 seasons.
Lombardi could also be referring to teams asking for Brown or Gleason, both of whom are could become UFAs in four years.
BTW, there's no four seasons requirement for unrestricted free agency at age 27. The nhl.com CBA FAQ writer was just a dumbass. From the actual CBA,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Article 10.1 (a)(i)
For (A) the 2005-06 League Year, any Player who is 31 years of age or older and has four (4) Accrued Seasons as of June 30 of the end of the 2004-05 League Year, (B) the 2006-07 League Year, any Player who either has eight (8) Accrued Seasons or is 29 years of age or older as of June 30 of the end of the 2005-06 League Year, (C) the 2007-08 League Year, any Player who either has seven (7) Accrued Seasons or is 28 Years of age or older as of June 30 of the end of the 2006-07 League Year, and (D) the 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 League Years, any Player who either has seven (7) Accrued Seasons or is 27 years of age or older as of June 30 of the end ofthe 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 League Year, shall, if his most recent SPC has expired, with such expiry occuring either as of June 30 of the applicable League Year or June 30 of any prior League Year, become an Unrestricted Free Agent.
The additional .017% increase in save percentage nowhere NEAR makes up for the 50-60 points (assuming no improvement at all), defensive play, and puck posession that would be lost with the departure of Frolov.
Do you even realize that what you wrote in the post I quoted refutes the arguement you're trying to make? Just curious.
BTW, there's no four seasons requirement for unrestricted free agency at age 27. The nhl.com CBA FAQ writer was just a dumbass. From the actual CBA,
Wow... very interesting. Thanks for catching that. Yeah, it's so much easier to read in the CBA FAQ at NHL.com for some things than the actual CBA, so I was going off of that.
I can't believe you would propose something like that. If I was going to offer that I would try to get Gomez with it not Gionta. Gionta got a lot of those goals because of Gomez.
