I don't really have a grudge against him, I wish him well and I liked him as a player... But I don't really associate him with the Kings anymore and I definitely don't want to see such an unpopular player have his number retired.
Blake's career stats as a King:805 games played, 161 goals, 333 assists, 494 points, -88, 1231 PIM, 92 PP goals, 1 SHG, 29 GWG, 2468 SOG. He ranks first all time among King defensemen in games played, goals, assists, points, PP goals, game winning goals and shots on goal. Since the Kings drafted him and the high rankings in stats all time I think the Kings retire his number. And I think the Kings make sure he does some PR work before the ceremony to get the fans on his side. An in depth interview explaining his side of the story as to why he left would help undo some of the damage to his rep.
... The only damage to his rep is from misinformed and bitter Kings' fans. And frankly I couldn't care what they would or wouldn't like. If Blake gets any serious support for the HHOF, number 4 can and should go on the wall, and if some people feel like it's more important to be an ingrate instead of being respectful of the history of the team and the players who brought the team their greatest successes to date, and want to stop supporting the team -- then let those "fans" walk. Hold the door open for them, call them a cab.
I would say the single most embarrassing thing about being a Kings' fan is to see so many people put certain bits of misinformation over all of the accomplishments in a player's career -- to let the misinformation dictate a player's legacy, rather than his performance on the ice. Blake was the best player on the Kings for several years, and he was the best defenseman on the team when they had their greatest achievement. Blake, more than any other player, led the team back to the playoffs in 1998 after the team endured their darkest period. It says a lot about a fanbase that can't appreciate that greatness when they see it; to take issue with a player and deride him because, essentially, Tim Leiweke or Dave Taylor told them to do so. Because, it really came down to their word against Blake's in 2000.
Nothing Leiweke or Taylor said ever really came to pass. Blake never did test free agency in 2001, despite Taylor specifically saying after the trade that Rob would. And beyond that, if Blake was truly this selfish guy who wanted nothing more than to leave the Kings, then why did the Kings he left behind talk so respectfully of him? Why did those teammates not rip him out the door? After all, he was "all about the money", right? What did those guys owe Blake after he left? Nothing. So, nothing stopped them from speaking their minds. After Blake left, the Avs and the Sharks put a letter on him. When he came back to L.A., the same thing happened. If Blake was such a jack***, how did THAT keep happening?
For me, I would concentrate more on those who appreciate what Blake did here (and elsewhere) than waste my time trying to placate those who refused to do that.
... The only damage to his rep is from misinformed and bitter Kings' fans. And frankly I couldn't care what they would or wouldn't like. If Blake gets any serious support for the HHOF, number 4 can and should go on the wall, and if some people feel like it's more important to be an ingrate instead of being respectful of the history of the team and the players who brought the team their greatest successes to date, and want to stop supporting the team -- then let those "fans" walk. Hold the door open for them, call them a cab.
I would say the single most embarrassing thing about being a Kings' fan is to see so many people put certain bits of misinformation over all of the accomplishments in a player's career -- to let the misinformation dictate a player's legacy, rather than his performance on the ice. Blake was the best player on the Kings for several years, and he was the best defenseman on the team when they had their greatest achievement. Blake, more than any other player, led the team back to the playoffs in 1998 after the team endured their darkest period. It says a lot about a fanbase that can't appreciate that greatness when they see it; to take issue with a player and deride him because, essentially, Tim Leiweke or Dave Taylor told them to do so. Because, it really came down to their word against Blake's in 2000.
Nothing Leiweke or Taylor said ever really came to pass. Blake never did test free agency in 2001, despite Taylor specifically saying after the trade that Rob would. And beyond that, if Blake was truly this selfish guy who wanted nothing more than to leave the Kings, then why did the Kings he left behind talk so respectfully of him? Why did those teammates not rip him out the door? After all, he was "all about the money", right? What did those guys owe Blake after he left? Nothing. So, nothing stopped them from speaking their minds. After Blake left, the Avs and the Sharks put a letter on him. When he came back to L.A., the same thing happened. If Blake was such a jack***, how did THAT keep happening?
For me, I would concentrate more on those who appreciate what Blake did here (and elsewhere) than waste my time trying to placate those who refused to do that.
What about when he got a "Low Contract Offer" and decided that he wasn't going to be captain any longer and Andy Murray had to convince him to keep the C on his chest.
Or the "I Don't wanna be traded I have a NTC, I wanna retire here" and then boom doesn't get a contract offer quick enough or high enough from Lombardi, and he goes to San Jose.
What about when he got a "Low Contract Offer" and decided that he wasn't going to be captain any longer and Andy Murray had to convince him to keep the C on his chest.
Or the "I Don't wanna be traded I have a NTC, I wanna retire here" and then boom doesn't get a contract offer quick enough or high enough from Lombardi, and he goes to San Jose.
... Blake had no obligation to waive a clause earned through negotiation. And, when he got the offer from San Jose, he gave the Kings a chance to sign him at a discount.
... The only damage to his rep is from misinformed and bitter Kings' fans. And frankly I couldn't care what they would or wouldn't like. If Blake gets any serious support for the HHOF, number 4 can and should go on the wall, and if some people feel like it's more important to be an ingrate instead of being respectful of the history of the team and the players who brought the team their greatest successes to date, and want to stop supporting the team -- then let those "fans" walk. Hold the door open for them, call them a cab.
I would say the single most embarrassing thing about being a Kings' fan is to see so many people put certain bits of misinformation over all of the accomplishments in a player's career -- to let the misinformation dictate a player's legacy, rather than his performance on the ice. Blake was the best player on the Kings for several years, and he was the best defenseman on the team when they had their greatest achievement. Blake, more than any other player, led the team back to the playoffs in 1998 after the team endured their darkest period. It says a lot about a fanbase that can't appreciate that greatness when they see it; to take issue with a player and deride him because, essentially, Tim Leiweke or Dave Taylor told them to do so. Because, it really came down to their word against Blake's in 2000.
Nothing Leiweke or Taylor said ever really came to pass. Blake never did test free agency in 2001, despite Taylor specifically saying after the trade that Rob would. And beyond that, if Blake was truly this selfish guy who wanted nothing more than to leave the Kings, then why did the Kings he left behind talk so respectfully of him? Why did those teammates not rip him out the door? After all, he was "all about the money", right? What did those guys owe Blake after he left? Nothing. So, nothing stopped them from speaking their minds. After Blake left, the Avs and the Sharks put a letter on him. When he came back to L.A., the same thing happened. If Blake was such a jack***, how did THAT keep happening?
For me, I would concentrate more on those who appreciate what Blake did here (and elsewhere) than waste my time trying to placate those who refused to do that.
Some of us choose to see both sides of this, rather than take select facts, argue them in favor of Blake and then discount other's opinions on the subject that are also based on facts. But, I do consider this subject old and tired, as well as irrelevant at this point.
As a side note, I asked you once before and you did not answer. Do you remember what Bob Miller said during a Kings v. Avalanche telecast about Blake leaving? It was specifically after the boos were quite pronounced.
... Blake had no obligation to waive a clause earned through negotiation. And, when he got the offer from San Jose, he gave the Kings a chance to sign him at a discount.
Should that have been surprising that they were going to tell him they were going to trade him? Is that like a shock? It was like Ryan Smyth getting traded. Don't take the discount and get traded. Looking back our biggest thing was we didn't trade him earlier.
If he really believed his words that he wanted to retire in LA he would have signed a deal that made sense for the LA Kings if he cared so much about the organization. Want to see a guy that has class and keeps to his word, it's Teemu Selanne, the guy said he wanted to only play in Anaheim and he signs for a cap hit of 2.625. He could have gotten a lot more on another team, but he has class and the paycheck wasn't the biggest selling point for him.
... Blake had no obligation to waive a clause earned through negotiation. And, when he got the offer from San Jose, he gave the Kings a chance to sign him at a discount.
The fact that you can defend Blake taking the C off his chest, or nicely stated "resign" as Captain is incredible. The act is indefensible. I have never looked into it but question whether it has ever happened in the history of the league. But, what am I thinking, there has never been a situation where a player wearing a letter was in contract negotiations with its then team pending upcoming free agency, negotiations that were perhaps heated and/or hostile at times. Yes, I am sure Blake was the only one in the history of the league to ever go through such a thing, thereby justifying ripping the C off his chest.
Perhaps there have been many examples of this. Would be interesting to know.
... in LA, Kings captain Rob Blake seems far more consumed with his contract negotiations than he is with the plight of his team and teammates.
Already this season he has renounced his captaincy, taken it back and rejected what the Kings felt was Chris Pronger -like money ($22.5M versus $29.5M over three years), given the Blues Captain's league MVP status, age advantage and Blake's history of injury. Blake's latest strategy? Breaking off talks with the Kings all together. His position is that a negotiated settlement is no longer imminent and that a trade is inevitable.
Well, so much for the Kings building on their fine start. Forget about a focused group looking to prove they can contend with the big boys. The season has become all about Blake's situation and his pursuit of pay dirt.
In Blake's defense, he did take the "C" off his jersey to start the season, even if it was in response to an "uncomplimentary" contract offer. Only the thoughtful appeals of Coach Andy Murray convinced Blake that he was the team captain. No one else. Well, Blake's insistence on promoting his individual agenda at least proves that his original instinct was his truest act as captain to date...
discount other's opinions on the subject that are also based on facts.
... Which facts? Enlighten me. What have I said that is untrue? Did anything Leiweke or Taylor say about Blake actually come to pass? Did Lombardi make an attempt to keep Blake after he proposed a hometown discount? Seriously. If you're going to make the case that Blake's entire legacy as a King is one of how much he screwed the Kings over, then MAKE your case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zad
As a side note, I asked you once before and you did not answer. Do you remember what Bob Miller said during a Kings v. Avalanche telecast about Blake leaving? It was specifically after the boos were quite pronounced.
... I don't remember and frankly couldn't give half a damn what Bob Miller said about it, personally. Miller is on the Kings' payroll. He has a conflict of interest. Did Miller negotiate with Blake? Did he sit down at the bargaining table? Did he engineer the trade to Colorado?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belanger25
Should that have been surprising that they were going to tell him they were going to trade him? Is that like a shock? It was like Ryan Smyth getting traded. Don't take the discount and get traded. Looking back our biggest thing was we didn't trade him earlier.
... If they wanted to trade him all along, then why give him an NTC?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zad
The fact that you can defend Blake taking the C off his chest, or nicely stated "resign" as Captain is incredible. The act is indefensible.
... That's your opinion. I don't see what sense it makes for a guy about to be traded to hold onto a C. If the team's President and GM say "hey take it or leave it", the player has every right to tell them to blow it out their ***es. I thought Blake did it to take a stand, and to show solidarity with his teammates, some of whom had already had their own problems with the "take it or leave it" negotiating style of the Kings. Blake simply called the Kings' bluff; said, in effect, "hey if you wanna trade me so bad, here's your C. Want to play hardball? Bring it."
JT Dutch, I think he got screwed the first time around, but he did more than his share of screwing the franchise by turning down the trade, then signing with SJ.
Granted, he wasn't made an offer within a reasonable time frame, but he didn't provide much production for his $6 mil or whatever it was....
... Ahahahaha, yes of course! Who knows more about the tradition of Captaincy than Rob Blake does? Why, the worst goaltender in NHL history, Daren Eliot!
And if Blake didn't care about what a C represented to his teammates, again ... why did no King criticize him for it? Why didn't the Kings criticize him after he was traded? Why was he wearing a C again for San Jose? Why did he take a C when he came back to L.A.?
If strawmen is what you seek, you are writing to the wrong guy. "If you're going to make the case that Blake's entire legacy as a King is one of how much he screwed the Kings over, then MAKE your case." That isn't my position. I can see however why you would wish that to be it, because the position, by its nature, is flawed, as is yours.
As I said before, the subject is actually quite irrelevant and I have spent much time arguing it though typically with those who are objective (albeit passionate). If you choose to only see that Blake was a hero to his teammates and stood up against the tyranny of the Kings by taking the C off his chest, then there is really no point even approaching the subject with you. You enter it with only one perspective and I choose not to suffer myopia in any form.
If strawmen is what you seek, you are writing to the wrong guy. "If you're going to make the case that Blake's entire legacy as a King is one of how much he screwed the Kings over, then MAKE your case." That isn't my position. I can see however why you would wish that to be it, because the position, by its nature, is flawed, as is yours.
... Fair enough, Zad. If that is your position, then of course I'll agree to disagree. My post wasn't 100% to you in particular; I'm not going to post an individual rebuttal to everyone who has been part of the thread. Wasn't meant to single you out and I apologize for coming off that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zad
If you choose to only see that Blake was a hero to his teammates and stood up against the tyranny of the Kings by taking the C off his chest, then there is really no point even approaching the subject with you. You enter it with only one perspective and I choose not to suffer myopia in any form.
... What I see is that the player has every right to go back at management; that they are equals. The players can't thrive without the league of teams, and the teams can't thrive without the players. Both sides could survive without the other, but thrive? No. I don't see the player as someone who has no rights, as someone who blindly must agree to what management wants to pay him, or feel obligated to waive their own rights (such as NTCs) because management wants to make a change.
Blake took a stand by removing his C, and if it was a stand for himself, his teammates would have been mute about it or critical. But his teammates were anything but. Norstrom, in particular, spoke up IN FAVOR of Blake just after Rob resigned the C. Why would he feel the need to say that, if what Blake did wasn't for his teammates? And then, what of the aftermath? Is it a coincidence that Matty was named the next captain? Not to me it isn't. Those two were defensive partners for several years. I'm sure Blake passed on his experience as a leader to Norstrom, just as Gretzky and Coffey had passed theirs on to Blake. I don't buy the notion that a player becomes a captain by looking out for self. Blake reportedly didn't even WANT the C when Robinson gave it to him in the first place, but he took it for the team, didn't he? I guess that part goes ignored by those that choose to paint him as the greedy and selfish athlete.
And if Blake didn't care about what a C represented to his teammates, again ... why did no King criticize him for it? Why didn't the Kings criticize him after he was traded?
They are classy players and don't want to throw the drama around when they are in a playoff race?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch
Why was he wearing a C again for San Jose?
They paid him enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch
Why did he take a C when he came back to L.A.?
We paid him enough. And he wanted to show us that he was committed to leading us the rest of the way... Or so he said...
__________________
"It has not been a good day. I lost my glasses early this morning and I had to go buy a pair of 79 dollar reading glasses today. 79 bucks. You can literally get them at Costco, three-for-20." - Darryl Sutter's response to going up 2-0 in the series.
Did anything Leiweke or Taylor say about Blake actually come to pass?
Several times you have asked this question, in particular about the claim that Blake would test free agency.
I think the fact that Blake went on to win a cup immediately after the trade, something no one could have known, factored in heavily to him sticking with Colorado and foregoing free agency.
Unless your point is that Blake would have stayed with any team he was traded to... which is not really likely, even in the world of hypothetical reminiscence, so really, this point that the claim Blake would test free agency not coming to pass, is not much of a point.
Furthermore, and this isn't specifically directed at the part of your post I quoted, but rather in general, I find it interesting that you can at the same time defend Blake for standing up for himself, which really is just a nice way of saying, put money as his #1 priority, and then go on to say only ingrates paint Blake as greedy.
In a way, you have, by your own statements taken in context with eachother, essentially said Blake is greedy, only in more pleasant vernacular.
"The source said that Blake is waiting until the conclusion of the Stanley Cup Finals because he did not want to be a distraction while the Chicago Blackhawks and Philadelphia Flyers are still playing."
As though anyone would give a **** or care. What an arrogant, egotistical *****.
**** you Blake, and your "loyalty" to the team who made you what you are. Did I remember to say **** you?
