Did the Kings just write off a 104 point season? (great article by Rosen)

I

Illegal_Stick

Lurker
In another thread I wrote I was concerned with the attitude in the exit interviews. I felt like Blake and Todd especially acted like "oh well" and as if losing the series was pre-ordained. I found this particularly frustrating from a coach, who I thought made some coaching errors (and I am not, nor have I ever been, a TM basher.) I have never seen a team/management so satisfied with a first round exit (that they couldn't even push to seven games.) The vibe of it all was - we're fine, we're headed the right way, but there are some real signs for concern here too. Enter Jon Rosen with a great article that some of you will enjoy just for the Zegras/Turcotte bit alone. Guess who Yannetti wanted lol? Rosen had some pointed replies to others on Twitter that were great too, one quoted below.

https://theforumreport.com/did-the-kings-just-write-off-a-104-point-season/

One of the Twitter replies from Rosen:

The Kings don’t have “a few years.” Their stated goal at the outset of the rebuild was for their championship and emerging younger cores to overlap. Kempe, the 29th pick, was drafted as a project in 2014. Byfield and Turcotte went 2 and 5 and were *not* projects
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Getting this kinda vibe...

giphy.gif
 
Rosen does a good job of calling out the media response by Blake and Todd for the fans that want more of a mea culpa. The writing is on the wall that for this team to progress to a conference final the window is closed by Kopitar and Doughty's play falling off. At the moment all the other progression is just to get to a conference final with them still playing reasonably well. There is not yet a horizon where someone else leads this team and they get to be complimentary players. At least not from within. Growth from Gabe, Quentin, Kupari, Durzi, Spence, Clarke would need a massive breakout hit and not just the typical progression. Of those Gabe is the most likely to put up that monster season considering his skillset and that he does get to play with at least one of Fiala, VA or Kempe at most times.

All that said this team truly has been fun to watch this past season, the movement on the powerplay compared to previous seasons is really a joy. Fiala's amazing 1-2 breakaway goal was still one of the single best individual skill plays I've seen in years from a Kings player.

Watching Kempe get to 40 goals legitimately breaking teams backs was inspiring. Go back and watch how deflated he was to score his 30th goal on an EN. It's great that he wants to score meaningful goals, but I don't mind if he just scores em all however they come.
VA was about the most consistent player all year and while I still want him to be here in a mercenary role I understand why people want to give him an extension. I only ask that they be patient about it.

The back end wasn't as fun to watch but Mikey proved how important he is to this club. Edler was a good player for a long time but lets face it, his time is up. Todd should have done more earlier to mix through his options. Blake spending the one bit of capital that's in limited supply to get Gav and Korpi definitely gave this back end airs it didn't have before. Now that rental is over and we get to go back to square one. That whole situation along with the fact that stylistically Todd wants to put his 4th line out there against other teams bests are probably the most maddening things to go into next season knowing.
 
Getting this kinda vibe...

giphy.gif

The vibe I get is quite simple - there is a lot to be positive about, BUT there has to be accountability at the same time. Applauding the progress is fine, but applauding a first round exit and not asking hard questions isn't going to help this team get anywhere. Rosen is asking questions I don't see any media asking the team. Pretending we are exactly where we need to be without questioning some high profile picks potentially becoming busts (personally I think Turcotte will be and still have hope Byfield won't be) is fair game, as far as I'm concerned.
 
The vibe I get is quite simple - there is a lot to be positive about, BUT there has to be accountability at the same time. Applauding the progress is fine, but applauding a first round exit and not asking hard questions isn't going to help this team get anywhere. Rosen is asking questions I don't see any media asking the team. Pretending we are exactly where we need to be without questioning some high profile picks potentially becoming busts (personally I think Turcotte will be and still have hope Byfield won't be) is fair game, as far as I'm concerned.

Sometimes any organization has to sit back and admit now is not their time. It’s the Oilers time. That is the reality of the game today. The team should be happy with the growth they’ve shown over the last 365 days. To ignore the successes while focusing on the 1st round loss is not how quality franchises are built and run.
 
After the Fiala trade Robitaille was interviewed on I forgot which podcast but he said they saw the Kings’ Championship window starting to open in two seasons, but once you get to the playoffs anything can happen.

All checks out to me with them not reacting like Bruins management during exit interviews. Besides, Blake pointed right to game 4 and said you have to close out games. And Todd said the PK would be the summer project. Yes those are obvious statements but what are they supposed to say? It wasn’t all just pats on the back.

Lastly, Rosen said Byfield wasn’t a project?! It’s the only thing consistent that’s been said about him that he is, in every sense, a project you were drafting for potential, not current impact.
 
I thought it was very poor for the exit interviews to be done mere hours after the team ended a highly contested playoff series. I have never seen that before. Usually if a season ended on a Saturday for any team, the exit interviews would be done on Monday at the earliest. Usually, Sunday a day to rest, catch up, gather your thoughts, come down from a highly emotional series, then perhaps just have the team meet on Monday, and then perhaps Tuesday or Wednesday address the media.

I was also not happy with some of the answers, but I have to take into account the limited amount of time that had lapsed between the final buzzer on the season and the exit interviews.
 
The Kings made progress this year but from my stand point. This line up will not win the Cup with the small forwards they have and soft play. Moore, Lizzolte played to their highest level but they get pushed around rather easy. Arvi when on is a good goal scorer but he too gets ragdoll quite a bit. Kings need more players like Kempe, tall, Fast skater that can shoot the puck and isn't afraid to get physical.
 
Last year I was real proud of the group. I watched the exit interviews thinking how well we played and how good this year would be.

This year I feel quite the opposite. We had the tools to do a lot better post season. Not even watching the interviews. Done with LA Kings staff until October.
 
Sometimes any organization has to sit back and admit now is not their time. It’s the Oilers time. That is the reality of the game today. The team should be happy with the growth they’ve shown over the last 365 days. To ignore the successes while focusing on the 1st round loss is not how quality franchises are built and run.

Fair point...as long as the team is held accountable that next year this type of exit would not be acceptable. We're saying that now - I want it to be the standard to which they are held next year. I get we are in the 2010/2011 phase so there's no need to panic yet, but accountability keeps us on track. Remember that DL was so accountable he was very close to being fired when he made the hail mary of hiring Sutter. Will Blake et al. be held to a similar standard?
 
After the Fiala trade Robitaille was interviewed on I forgot which podcast but he said they saw the Kings’ Championship window starting to open in two seasons, but once you get to the playoffs anything can happen.

All checks out to me with them not reacting like Bruins management during exit interviews. Besides, Blake pointed right to game 4 and said you have to close out games. And Todd said the PK would be the summer project. Yes those are obvious statements but what are they supposed to say? It wasn’t all just pats on the back.

Lastly, Rosen said Byfield wasn’t a project?! It’s the only thing consistent that’s been said about him that he is, in every sense, a project you were drafting for potential, not current impact.

I guess my question then would be - did we give up too much at the deadline when our window isn't open? I personally don't think the 1st was for Korpisalo, it was for Gavrikov and if he's re-signed then I can live with that. But if not - was that a wise spending of a future asset - to gain key pieces for a likely early exit?
 
I'm just glad I'm not a Boston fan. That had to be just devastating. I mean, I had HOPED for more than a 1st round exit this season, but once we got stuck with the Oilers, I knew it was gonna be a tough series. It was actually one of the better series of the 1st round if you didn't care who won - tight games and lots of action. Not the magical ending we wanted, but we certainly got a lot better season than we all expected around game 20 or so.
 
Well it was a disappointing end to the season, but in reality, it was a foregone conclusion. Oilers got hot at the right time while the Kings, didn't. Playing against Edmonton this year is like playing against a young, prime Lebron AND a young, prime, healthy AD in McJesus and Draisaitl. What did you think was gonna happen?!

Our goalies have been shaky and questionable for most of the season, with a bunch of smallish players who didn't get physical when needed. Oilers seem to have our numbers the last two years and as long as McJesus and Leon are around, it will always be a tough road to get out of the west... Frankly, I was surprised at how well (in terms of standing and points) Kings did this season. It's too bad we had to play Edmonton first right off the bat.

I think we are on the right track. Kings need to get bigger and less soft. Sign Gavrikov somehow, keep Dursi, trade AI (maybe with Turcotte if a good deal shows up since AT 's value is likely low), bye bye Edler, hope QB takes the next step, sign Joonas to a reasonable contract and not sure what's Copley will be like next yr but at least he's not expensive, do well in the draft and find diamonds in the rough...
 
Fair point...as long as the team is held accountable that next year this type of exit would not be acceptable. We're saying that now - I want it to be the standard to which they are held next year. I get we are in the 2010/2011 phase so there's no need to panic yet, but accountability keeps us on track. Remember that DL was so accountable he was very close to being fired when he made the hail mary of hiring Sutter. Will Blake et al. be held to a similar standard?

The weirdest thing to me about the Kings organization is the hiring from within and the whole good old boy culture, i.e. Blake and Luc. IDK if other team's do this, but it just seems.. weird. It kinda translates to the ice with 4 15+ year players, which is good, but also an anomoly.
 
The weirdest thing to me about the Kings organization is the hiring from within and the whole good old boy culture, i.e. Blake and Luc. IDK if other team's do this, but it just seems.. weird. It kinda translates to the ice with 4 15+ year players, which is good, but also an anomoly.

It's a Dan Beckerman AEG thing. Both the Kings and Galaxy are run the same way.
It all started after Tim Leiweke left.
 
The weirdest thing to me about the Kings organization is the hiring from within and the whole good old boy culture, i.e. Blake and Luc. IDK if other team's do this, but it just seems.. weird. It kinda translates to the ice with 4 15+ year players, which is good, but also an anomoly.

It happens with every organization. Remember Dave Taylor was the Kings GM before Dean Lombardi. But it got supercharged under Lombardi in part because it’s what the Flyers/Sharks did. Part of the culture that Lombardi wanted to build went beyond the ice. He wanted young players to see former Kings return to LA to help mold the future. And it helped the Robitaille wanted the same.
 
Yeah, Management's response was BS. Blake traded a first round pic in this strong draft year for 2 rentals. They both want to go UFA and want $. Kings have no $. So, wasting a 1st round pic for a (temporary) minor upgrade on the team and a first round exit is a major fail IMO.

You make those types of trades when you have all the other pieces and you expect to make a deep run. Or, you better be able to sign the player(s).
 
This thread gives me a good excuse to post my 2 cents on the whole Byfield/Stutzle saga, some thoughts percolating through my mind for awhile. I saw an article a few months ago (I wish I could remember where it was), in which it was claimed ("unnamed sources"), that Blake held a meeting with his scouts prior to the 2020 draft, and the majority wanted to pick Stutzle, but Blake shot them down, and went with Byfield because of his "philosophy" and his "plan". What those are, exactly, wasn't made clear. Of course, the front office personnel dutifully repeated for attribution the "we're going with the plan" and "Byfield fits with our philosophy" line, as would any loyal soldier who wants to keep his job. But this is what bothers me: everyone seemed to be saying, going onto the draft, that Stutzle was the more developed prospect who had shown the most, while Byfield was somewhat raw but had the most upside. In my experience, in 60 years of following sports drafts. the one iron rule is, if you are drafting as high as the Kings, you absolutely go with the most finished product, you do not, ever, gamble with "upside". Not with a second overall pick. You go by what the prospects have shown that they can do, and take a flyer on "upside" later on. And you draft the best player available. You do not choose someone because you think he fits better with your "philosophy" or "plan".
Who knows? Byfield is only 20. Maybe in a couple of years we'll all be laughing at this and repeating all the stuff about Joe Thornton again. But at least up till now, Byfield's career arc has been worrying. You don't spend a #2 overall pick on a maybe 40-point forward, just because he's big (and he doesn't even use his size to much advantage anyway, I haven't seen much aggression in his play). We will see.
 
This thread gives me a good excuse to post my 2 cents on the whole Byfield/Stutzle saga, some thoughts percolating through my mind for awhile. I saw an article a few months ago (I wish I could remember where it was), in which it was claimed ("unnamed sources"), that Blake held a meeting with his scouts prior to the 2020 draft, and the majority wanted to pick Stutzle, but Blake shot them down, and went with Byfield because of his "philosophy" and his "plan". What those are, exactly, wasn't made clear. Of course, the front office personnel dutifully repeated for attribution the "we're going with the plan" and "Byfield fits with our philosophy" line, as would any loyal soldier who wants to keep his job. But this is what bothers me: everyone seemed to be saying, going onto the draft, that Stutzle was the more developed prospect who had shown the most, while Byfield was somewhat raw but had the most upside. In my experience, in 60 years of following sports drafts. the one iron rule is, if you are drafting as high as the Kings, you absolutely go with the most finished product, you do not, ever, gamble with "upside". Not with a second overall pick. You go by what the prospects have shown that they can do, and take a flyer on "upside" later on. And you draft the best player available. You do not choose someone because you think he fits better with your "philosophy" or "plan".
Who knows? Byfield is only 20. Maybe in a couple of years we'll all be laughing at this and repeating all the stuff about Joe Thornton again. But at least up till now, Byfield's career arc has been worrying. You don't spend a [URL=https://letsgokings.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=2]#2 [/URL] overall pick on a maybe 40-point forward, just because he's big (and he doesn't even use his size to much advantage anyway, I haven't seen much aggression in his play). We will see.
I have been following the Kings since 1975,I have to agree that if you are the #2 overall pick, you better be above average in one or more of the following.
Shot/scoring touch, playmaking, skating speed. So for I have none in Byfield.
 
This thread gives me a good excuse to post my 2 cents on the whole Byfield/Stutzle saga, some thoughts percolating through my mind for awhile. I saw an article a few months ago (I wish I could remember where it was), in which it was claimed ("unnamed sources"), that Blake held a meeting with his scouts prior to the 2020 draft, and the majority wanted to pick Stutzle, but Blake shot them down, and went with Byfield because of his "philosophy" and his "plan". What those are, exactly, wasn't made clear. Of course, the front office personnel dutifully repeated for attribution the "we're going with the plan" and "Byfield fits with our philosophy" line, as would any loyal soldier who wants to keep his job. But this is what bothers me: everyone seemed to be saying, going onto the draft, that Stutzle was the more developed prospect who had shown the most, while Byfield was somewhat raw but had the most upside. In my experience, in 60 years of following sports drafts. the one iron rule is, if you are drafting as high as the Kings, you absolutely go with the most finished product, you do not, ever, gamble with "upside". Not with a second overall pick. You go by what the prospects have shown that they can do, and take a flyer on "upside" later on. And you draft the best player available. You do not choose someone because you think he fits better with your "philosophy" or "plan".
Who knows? Byfield is only 20. Maybe in a couple of years we'll all be laughing at this and repeating all the stuff about Joe Thornton again. But at least up till now, Byfield's career arc has been worrying. You don't spend a #2 overall pick on a maybe 40-point forward, just because he's big (and he doesn't even use his size to much advantage anyway, I haven't seen much aggression in his play). We will see.

Look back to the 2019 draft. Kaapo Kakko was widely considered to be the more developed, NHL ready, polished product. Jack Hughes was undersized with room to grow. Did the Devils make the wrong choice by taking the kid with room for growth over the prospect everyone in the hockey world called "NHL ready"?
 
Back
Top Bottom