Start Copley for Game 6

  • Thread starter Thread starter K-Man #32
  • Start date Start date
Rogie-Vachon said:
You wanna be GM’s all wanted to trade with the ‘Yotes for an oft-injured defenseman for 2 years. Blake pulled the trigger with Columbus - and it worked.

Copley literally dropped a puck which allowed a goal. It’s do or die.

Go with experience, play better defense & stay outta the fargin’ box
Click to expand...

What worked? We're 1 game from elimination.

I still would have traded for Chychrun over the package we got. We could have jack squat to show for a first and a 3rd rather than a young, cost-controlled top 4 D (who is often injured). I'd rather get long-term assets over rentals 10 times out of 10.
 
K-Man #32 said:
We need an emotional lift like we got when Vilardi came back and Fiala. Now we need one from The Cop
Click to expand...

As a fan of underdogs, I think starting Copley game 5 would.. have been a good idea. Game 6 is risky. It'll all be on his back. IDK. I hate they waited for the 4th goal to pull. It shoulda been the start of the game, or immediately after the 3rd. Starting Copper would almost feel like a disservice. And there's no way no-adjustments Todd starts him.
 
KOPI! PEVS! said:
As a fan of underdogs, I think starting Copley game 5 would.. have been a good idea. Game 6 is risky. It'll all be on his back. IDK. I hate they waited for the 4th goal to pull. It shoulda been the start of the game, or immediately after the 3rd. Starting Copper would almost feel like a disservice. And there's no way no-adjustments Todd starts him.
Click to expand...
If we go out Copley should man our crease or is that why they called up Cal for ? Lol jk
 
KOPI! PEVS! said:
As a fan of underdogs, I think starting Copley game 5 would.. have been a good idea. Game 6 is risky. It'll all be on his back. IDK.
Click to expand...

Exactly why I advocated starting Copley last game. Far less pressure on everyone in a game 5 than a game 6. If Copley lost game 5, then you go back to a rested Korpisalo for game 6.
 
Copley! Copley! Copley! Copley! Copley! Copley! Copley! Copley! Copley! Copley! Copley!
 
I'm just now watching last night's game....very weird that TMac chose to change out the goalie after the 4th goal, which there is no way any goalie on earth could have stopped off of Hyman's face. Unless whatever illness Kaliyev has is also going around the team and he knew Korpi was not feeling 100% anyway.

Should have started Copley this game to change it up anyway.

(have to go back to work now....3rd period watch will have to wait till later, but, yes, I will subject myself to the torture eventually)
 
hokiecat said:
I doubt we re-sign Gavrikov. He is going to want big bucks. He's impressed me a ton with his play. He's a real deal top 4 guy. So a team with more cap room will probably overpay for him. Korpi, I could take him or leave him. He's been very good for the most part and has good size but I don't see him being a huge step up over Copley.
Click to expand...

There will be room to re-sign Gavrikov. The real question is does he want to be here?

Cap-wise there are a number of options, which begin with moving on from Durzi and Walker. I also think we should consider biting the bullet and trading Petersen knowing that it will be painful to find a taker. Perhaps add Durzi and a 2025 first to the mix for someone to take him. We can't buyout Petersen because his cap hit actually goes up next year if we do. But if the team acquiring him has ample cap space (for example, Chicago), they can buy him out and pay $7,666,668 over 4 years, with $5,166,667 of that coming next year. A first rounder and Durzi (second round equivalent perhaps) seems to be consistent with the market.

I know that trading another first will bite us in the @ss but a 2025 late first rounder wouldn't play on the big club for years and we are entering a small window where Kopitar and Doughty can still be a net positive. Trading Petersen (and the others mentioned) not only opens up space for Gavrikov, but also Korpisalo, Vilardi and maybe a couple of depth players.
 
Starting Copley is rolling over and accepting a loss. Korpisalo stole game 1 and probably stole game 3. Copley can't and won't do that. I'd rather roll the dice one more time and give Korpisalo a chance at redemption. Copley isn't the answer.
 
Statue4Deano said:
Starting Copley is rolling over and accepting a loss. Korpisalo stole game 1 and probably stole game 3. Copley can't and won't do that. I'd rather roll the dice one more time and give Korpisalo a chance at redemption. Copley isn't the answer.
Click to expand...

Starting Copley in game 6, a must win, high pressure game, is a terrible idea. Todd missed his chance to give Korpi a long rest by having Pheonix start game 5. Just another coaching gaffe...
 
VCRW said:
Starting Copley in game 6, a must win, high pressure game, is a terrible idea. Todd missed his chance to give Korpi a long rest by having Pheonix start game 5. Just another coaching gaffe...
Click to expand...

I agree but had Copley been given the starting job to begin with this series doesn’t make it to Game 6. It’s over in 4 imo.

Taking a step back I think there’s value in forcing the Oilers to play 13 out of a possible 14 playoffs games. Yes losing to them sucks. But look at their roster. They’re quietly literally built to steamroll a team like the Kings. But the Kings pushed them to the limit. Ultimately the Kings aren’t able to beat them 4 out of 7 games but there’s no shame in that to me. It just means the young players have a lot to work to do.
 
Statue4Deano said:
I agree but had Copley been given the starting job to begin with this series doesn’t make it to Game 6. It’s over in 4 imo.

Taking a step back I think there’s value in forcing the Oilers to play 13 out of a possible 14 playoffs games. Yes losing to them sucks. But look at their roster. They’re quietly literally built to steamroll a team like the Kings. But the Kings pushed them to the limit. Ultimately the Kings aren’t able to beat them 4 out of 7 games but there’s no shame in that to me. It just means the young players have a lot to work to do.
Click to expand...

You think Phoenix "beat Quick to fastest King to 20 wins" Copley would have had us lose in 4? No way. I think we'd be in better shape. Doesn't matter now. But I highly disagree with that assessment.
 
Statue4Deano said:
I agree but had Copley been given the starting job to begin with this series doesn’t make it to Game 6. It’s over in 4 imo.
Click to expand...

I am definitely not saying that Copley should have started since game 1. Quite the contrary... big Korpisalo supporter. But I strongly felt Korpi needed a rest for game 5, and game 5 only.
 
HeadInjury said:
There will be room to re-sign Gavrikov. The real question is does he want to be here?

Cap-wise there are a number of options, which begin with moving on from Durzi and Walker. I also think we should consider biting the bullet and trading Petersen knowing that it will be painful to find a taker. Perhaps add Durzi and a 2025 first to the mix for someone to take him. We can't buyout Petersen because his cap hit actually goes up next year if we do. But if the team acquiring him has ample cap space (for example, Chicago), they can buy him out and pay $7,666,668 over 4 years, with $5,166,667 of that coming next year. A first rounder and Durzi (second round equivalent perhaps) seems to be consistent with the market.

I know that trading another first will bite us in the @ss but a 2025 late first rounder wouldn't play on the big club for years and we are entering a small window where Kopitar and Doughty can still be a net positive. Trading Petersen (and the others mentioned) not only opens up space for Gavrikov, but also Korpisalo, Vilardi and maybe a couple of depth players.
Click to expand...

We have 6.7M give or take and have to resign Gabe, Kupari, JAD, and get a backup goalie. There is NOT the money to re-sign Gavrikov without dumping salary. If you dump Cal with a first then you are doubling down on Gavrikov. To me it is like complaining that trading 2 firsts to get Chychrun at a bargain salary was too much but trading 2 firsts to try and extend Gavrikov is worth it because you split it over 2 deals. At some point the Kings are going to need first round picks. The pipeline isn't as flush as one would hope (Toby = bust, Turcotte = bust, Byfield = mediocre) since we've traded back-to-back firsts for Fiala and the rentals.

Moving on from Durzi is poor financially. A 1.7M cap hit is peanuts for what he provides. IMO Blake needs to offload Walker (could be tough) and Iafallo (been awesome in the playoffs but need that 4M to extend Gavrikov). I don't see the value of mortgaging the future until the team wins a playoff round. I love watching this team but we don't look like a sure thing (Bruins) where I'd push all the chips in to hold the current together.
 
hokiecat said:
We have 6.7M give or take and have to resign Gabe, Kupari, JAD, and get a backup goalie. There is NOT the money to re-sign Gavrikov without dumping salary. If you dump Cal with a first then you are doubling down on Gavrikov. To me it is like complaining that trading 2 firsts to get Chychrun at a bargain salary was too much but trading 2 firsts to try and extend Gavrikov is worth it because you split it over 2 deals. At some point the Kings are going to need first round picks. The pipeline isn't as flush as one would hope (Toby = bust, Turcotte = bust, Byfield = mediocre) since we've traded back-to-back firsts for Fiala and the rentals.

Moving on from Durzi is poor financially. A 1.7M cap hit is peanuts for what he provides. IMO Blake needs to offload Walker (could be tough) and Iafallo (been awesome in the playoffs but need that 4M to extend Gavrikov). I don't see the value of mortgaging the future until the team wins a playoff round. I love watching this team but we don't look like a sure thing (Bruins) where I'd push all the chips in to hold the current together.
Click to expand...

I guess we differ vastly on Durzi. I think he is a net negative by a wide margin and his replacement (either Clarke and Spence) is already here. Time to move on and it saves about $800,000 in cap making the switch. Switching from Edler to Bjornfot saves us about $600,000. Trading Petersen saves us just under $3.9 million (his buried cap hit). Move Walker and there will be cap space for everyone.

I'm sure many will disagree with my trade Petersen take, but the future 1st we would be trading will be a lower one. Basically, a pick equivalent to a player of Bjornfot or Kupari's level. If it's a 2025 pick, that player would likely make the roster in 2028 or 2029. It won't be an earth shattering loss. We will have some options to trade players that have some value (Roy for example, but I'd try to re-sign him).

Other than Vilardi, none of our RFAs will be getting more than a qualifying offer, which is a 5% raise. I think they may be able to convince Gabe to take a smaller raise for one year. The cap is expected to go way up after next season. We are dealing with a one-year pinch.

This team is built largely on trades and free agents. It's not that different than what DL did really. The difference is the younger players on the 2012 team included difference makers, and no one fits that mold now except Vilardi and Anderson.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Now Chirping

Share this page

Back
Top