HFBoards

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

#41 : Kings vs. Coyotes - 1/5/12 , Post Game OT WIN ! Thoughts & Tidbits

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-06-2012, 06:28 PM
  #226
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,829
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
SUTTER (Talking about Quick): “Just based on stats. He’s a really good athlete and he’s a really good competitor. As a goalie, he has really good leadership skills. With a lot of goalies, it’s their position and then it’s (the rest of) the team. With him, you always got the read on him that he was a big part of the identity, maybe the main part, the major player in that. He doesn’t get enough credit. It’s normal cities like this to jump on the star wagon, the flash-and-dash stuff. He doesn’t get enough credit, and he’s clearly, clearly the team’s best player.’’

Sutter must read this forum.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Telos View Post
Let's talk extension when the season is over and we know what we are dealing with. Arguing over $6-7 million now doesn't make any sense. All I know is I am sure as hell glad he is on my team for next to nothing this season and the next. This team needs to work their tails off at improving the offense and giving this guy support, because he is knocking his end of the bargain out of the park while their's is a bunt to third base playing for El Cid Lounge in a men's softball league.
This is exactly why the Kings don't have as long of window to win as some think they do. They are spending a ton of money on defense and center. They won't be able to spend as much on defense if they want to keep Quick. Next season is a huge season for the Kings. Hopefully Mitchell is open to a 1-year extension.

Sydor25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2012, 06:42 PM
  #227
Holden Caulfield
Moderator
Perennial Skeptic
 
Holden Caulfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MN14 View Post
Whoa, am I reading this right? We're by far the lowest goal-for-per-game team in recent league history?

Yuck. You would think the law of averages would come into play at some point.

I keep hoping that this is just one of those things where we catch an absolute, unstoppable fire towards the end of the season and start scoring 3-4 gpg
Sorry, that was among playoff teams, as that was the question that was asked.

__________________


Holden Caulfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2012, 03:29 PM
  #228
HansH
Unwelcome Spectre
 
HansH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Diego
Country: United States
Posts: 3,240
vCash: 500
After Thursday's games (I'm a little behind):

Kings and Predators projected to tie for 8th, finishing with 94 points - so, to edge the Preds out and tie Dallas for the #7 seed, the Kings need 48 points in the remaining 41 games, a record of 24-17 (or 23-16-2, etc) and a percentage of .585 (current percentage is .573). Even better would be to finish with 97 points (50 points in the remaining games, a record of 25-16) to edge Minnesota out of the #6 spot and land the lowest division-champ in the first round.

To jump up to the Pacific title, San Jose is projected to take that (and tie for the #2 seed) with 106 points. So, the Kings need 60 points in the remaining 41 games to take the division -- a record of 30-11 and a percentage of .731

HansH is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2012, 09:23 AM
  #229
kingsfan
#SutterforanOscar
 
kingsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,721
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RH63 View Post
I'm not selling Quick short at all. You're just too much about "what have you done for me lately".

Let me ask you this: If we were to trade DD, Kopi, MR and JQ, which would net us the biggest return?

My guess is, it won't be JQ, because unlike the other 3, JQ hasn't established himself as the best player, year after year.
There's a different trade market for different positions, so trading agoalie is much harder to find a partner for. Lower trade value does not indicate who is/isn't the best player.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buddy The Elf View Post
Ok.. I'm not going to trying and compare the Rangers to Colorado but the statistics tell the story in New York. Lundqvist has performed at a high level there for years. For the first time in like 5 season they are in the top 10 in scoring and they are one of the top teams in the league. That isn't a coincidence.
Of course it's not. But if Gaborik had been there for years and then Lundqvist was the one arriving and they suddenly started doing well, would it be fair to say it's Lundqvist who turned them around? According to your argument, yes. I think it's an equal split at best, and Gaborik just happened to be the guy who arrived later so it looks like he has the bigger impact.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Buddy The Elf View Post
Who are the high paid goaltenders that won the Cup? I don't remember how much Giguere was getting paid when he won but I think it was a mid-level salary for a goalie. He got his payday after and took a huge dump too. Fleury and Thomas make $5m and I already said I think that is about what I'd expect Quick to get. I got involved in this debate when I saw $7-$8m for Quick. No goalie in that salary level has won a Cup. I'm not saying it isn't possible. I'm saying it isn't necessary.
Is it necessary? I guess not, just like it's not necessary to have a point per game forward either like Boston, or an elite blueline like Carolina. There's technically nothing "necessary." As such, under your theory, we should be paying anyone really much more than $5 million a season.

Giguere was paid $3.99 million in 2006-2007 btw, so he cashed in well before the cup finals. In fact, he likely cashed in after 2003 when he led his team to that cup final as well.

When Thomas and Fluery signed their $5 million a year contract, they were among the highest paid goalies in the league. If you think Thomas would be getting $5 million a year now if he tested the open market, I think you're a little off your rocker personally. Look more in comparision with where Fluery and Thomas were among their peers when they signed their contracts. Fluery signed his seven-year deal before 2008-2009, Thomas signed his before 2009-2010. The only one with a contract higher than Fluery at the time he signed his extension was Luongo. When Thomas signed his, Miller, Kipprusoff, Backstrom, Broduer and Huet were by then ahead of him.

So Fluery was the second highest paid goaltender while Thomas was 7th respectively at the time of their signings. Quick more than holds a candle to both currently and if you factor in inflation since those contracts were signed, plus an additional year before Quick will likely even sign his contract, I think my guess of $6.3 - $6.5 million per season is very possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buddy The Elf View Post
And for the way the Kings are built salary-wise for the foreseeable future, pull money from either defense or scoring to give Quick that kinda salary could be detrimental.
Or it could be detrimental to go away from a sure thing (at least regular season wise) in QUick and turn it over to a talented, but unproven back up in Bernier.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buddy The Elf View Post
One thing is consistent with all post-lockout cup winners. Goal scoring. The Kings need that more than anything. If you can keep Quick and improve the goal scoring, great. But something will have to give. NYR rangers spend less than the total of Jack Johnson and Drew Doughty's CAP hits on their entire defensive roster. What happens when Quick makes $7m-$8m and the Kings have to spend less on their defense or anemic offense and Quick's performance suddenly drops? I'm not saying that Quick's success is dependent upon the defense in front of him because we have nothing to base it off of but is entirely possible that the team suffers when you have to shift more money to your goalie and take money from somewhere else.
The Rangers also spend twice on Lundqvist that we spend on Quick and Bernier combined, so I guess right now it all evens out right? Wait until the Rangers have to resign Del Zotto and McDonaugh as well. Our defense was pretty cheap 14 months ago as well when Johnson and Doughty were making something like $4 million combined.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buddy The Elf View Post
I'm sorry but the proof is in the pudding. Niemi is an average goalie. He won a cup. The guy was bleeding goals last playoffs and the Sharks still made it to the conference finals. Tim Thomas was a good goalie, had a bad year and then had an incredible run in the playoffs last year. Cam Ward was a rookie he had a incredible run in the playoffs and hasn't performed at that level since. Giguere was standing behind two hall of fame defensmen to win a cup. Chris Osgood played average in 07/08 and played incredible in the playoffs and won the Cup. None of these guys were considered "elite" when their teams were being built. A few of them got paid like it after but none of them played up to that standard again.
Niemi and Osgood are your standouts to back your case, but even in Osgood's case, he has a past. It's not like he came out of nowhere like Niemi, he was a vet who had been on cup winning teams before, including backing the Red Wings to one in 1998. And how can you say he didn't play like it again after winning the cup in 2008? He led the Wings back again in 2009.

And if you think Tim Thomas "had a bad year then had an incredible run in the playoffs last year" go look up some stats. Thomas had a 2.00 GAA and a .938 save percentage last year in the regular season, the save percentage number was the best for a full season in NHL history since expansion.

I think you are very jaded in your argument as a whole. Yes Giguere had hall of fame D-men to stand behind. So did Osgood with Lidstrom and Chelios. Niemi had Keith, who won the Norris that year, and Brent Seabrook. But even then, not all teams have a great defense and win the cup. Carolina had Frantisek Kaberle and Bret Hedican. I guess Ward was just benefitting from their steller prowess?

For the record, Ward's save percentage has gone up every year until this one, reaching .923 last year and the lone other time his team made the playoffs he backstopped them to the third round. I'm not sure how you can say he hasn't performed at that level since. If anything, he's a glaring example of a guy who does well given the team he plays for.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Buddy The Elf View Post
that is why you start giving Bernier starts now so you know what you have. Just like when Nabokov and Kiprusoff where in San Jose. Do you think it really mattered who the Sharks kept? At the end of the day would anything have changed for the Sharks had the Sharks traded Nabokov and kept Kiprusoff?
In hindsight, you are right. But history is littered with examples of teams handing over the reins to one goalie from another, or to have the new goalie bomb. maybe you should look through our history at who we have handed the reins over to and see how often it's worked out well. No one at the time knew Kipprusoff was as good or better than Nabokov (outside of Darryl Sutter perhaps) and the same applies now. Bernier could match or exceed Quick's marks. Who knows, but that's a heck of a gamble to take given the numbers Quick is putting up. If you can fast forward five-10 years and tell me how things pan out, then I'll except what you have to say. Since you can't, I'll stick with the horse I'm riding now thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buddy The Elf View Post
I think goaltending is important but it is useless if you don't have a great offense and a good defense. Considering the Kings need to score more goals to be considered a legitimate contdender, I'd like to see more of the piece of pie used towards that.
Once we can figure out why the rest of the team can't score, then I could support you more. The fact we score as little as we do with the talent already on the team, I don't think adding more offense is going to help much. There's a problem in the system right now that needs to be worked out first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by damacles1156 View Post
I think Rinnie is over paid as well. But to sit here and say Quick shouldn't get paid for his Third Contract is just as silly.

I think 5.9m(cap wise) Is fair maybe Higher. If Quick wins the Hart this year and has a strong Playoff; you have to pay the guy. You come with 5m (Cap wise) that is offensive. At least it would offend me.
Agreed. If we offered Quick $5 million on anything more than a one-year deal, Quick would likely extend us the middle finger and start packing his bags. If he continues to have the season he's having, he'll likely be a Vezina candidate, if not the winner, and a Hart Trophy candidate as well (at least being mentioned). That alone would likely get him into the top 5-7 in terms of pay, which would be $6 million per or more. To go down to $5 million per is a hometown discount that is just far to generous. The NHLPA would eat him alive.

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 02:35 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.