Kings News: And your new head coach is...

[kingsholygrail]

You really think Sarp will get 5 mill in free agency?? He's 35 years old. If we could get him for around 3 mill for 2 years I would do it.

Why do you want Sharp?

 

[Statto]

I'm happy with this.

Firstly he is in effect a new voice. The dynamic between an assistant and a player is very different than that of a coach and a player. He goes from being a technical teacher and cheerleader, enforcing Sutters rules and becomes the guy calling the shots and setting the rules, his rules. The past few years Sutter set the tone, now it will be Stevens. The relationship will change.

Also this is a guy that ran our D but as a head Coach played a more offensive game in Philly. If anyone is going to have a strong set of ideas on how to open up the offence without hamstringing the D it's Stevens. Given the lack of a nailed on Outstanding candidate he's the most sensible choice and it's hardly a stretch to think he will be a success.

Thinking more negatively if it goes wrong they can pull the trigger more quickly, than if Blake passed over Stevens for his own guy from the outside. I've seen too many examples of people bringing in their own guy to show who's in charge and stick with them for too long rather than lose face.

I've not posted for ages but for the record I'm quite pleased with Blake as GM, I think he will do a fine job. So far I've no complaints with his early decisions.

 

[kingsholygrail]

I'm happy with this.

Firstly he is in effect a new voice. The dynamic between an assistant and a player is very different than that of a coach and a player. He goes from being a technical teacher and cheerleader, enforcing Sutters rules and becomes the guy calling the shots and setting the rules, his rules. The past few years Sutter set the tone, now it will be Stevens. The relationship will change.

Also this is a guy that ran our D but as a head Coach played a more offensive game in Philly. If anyone is going to have a strong set of ideas on how to open up the offence without hamstringing the D it's Stevens. Given the lack of a nailed on Outstanding candidate he's the most sensible choice and it's hardly a stretch to think he will be a success.

Thinking more negatively if it goes wrong they can pull the trigger more quickly, than if Blake passed over Stevens for his own guy from the outside. I've seen too many examples of people bringing in their own guy to show who's in charge and stick with them for too long rather than lose face.

I've not posted for ages but for the record I'm quite pleased with Blake as GM, I think he will do a fine job. So far I've no complaints with his early decisions.

He's not a new voice. He's been with the org for 7 years.

 

[KINGS17]

This group has won two Stanley Cups, and has gone through less coaching changes over the last 10 years or so than the majority of the league.

Crosby has been through 5 head coaches. Are you going to criticize him too?

Are you going to try to compare anyone on this roster to Crosby?

Look, I will admit to being a little old school. I am looking forward to the day when the contracts are shorter or are no longer guaranteed, because I do believe it is often the players who are no longer getting the job done, and not the coach.

I really don't care about the majority of the league. The majority of the league never wins jack. More often than not it's players on retirement contracts who have grown complacent, not the coach.

 

[Statto]

He's not a new voice. He's been with the org for 7 years.

Which is why I said 'in effect'.

The dynamic and relationship between Stevens and the players will be very different now he's the head coach. It's just as good as a new voice as it's a whole new context.

 

[DryIslandBartender]

You really think Sarp will get 5 mill in free agency?? He's 35 years old. If we could get him for around 3 mill for 2 years I would do it.

He's not coming to LA on a team friendly contract, regardless of how old he is.

 

[Whiskeypete]

another reason to like J Stevens....long live the Whale

 

[lumbergh]

Feels to me like this is what the Kings would have done in a year anyway. Promoted Blake and Stevens. Try to retain the parts that are good, lose some of the baggage from the past.

One thing about hiring Stevens is that his leash may be shorter than an external hire.

 

[Butch 19]

Blake is still the ****ing GM.

Who were you expecting?

 

[KingsFan7824]

I agree. Things usually work pretty well in the short-term, but that's it.

What's long term for a coach?

It's now all on the players anyway. They played themselves out a coach that they won with. It's their show now.

 

[KingTrouty]

Who were you expecting?

So, I'm assuming your post was made with the caveat that Lombardi is already fired.

Futa. The man, you know, who's placing the training wheels on Rob Blake

 

[johnjm22]

Are you going to try to compare anyone on this roster to Crosby?

Look, I will admit to being a little old school. I am looking forward to the day when the contracts are shorter or are no longer guaranteed, because I do believe it is often the players who are no longer getting the job done, and not the coach.

I really don't care about the majority of the league. The majority of the league never wins jack. More often than not it's players on retirement contracts who have grown complacent, not the coach.

You're not being old school, your criticism is just bizarre.

Two cups in ten years and only three coaches is really good.

The Penguins have won two cups also over that same time span and had 5 coaches. Are they "too week to get it done"?

 

[CTKingsFan]

At first I wasn't for Stevens. I wanted some new blood. But the more I thought about it. The more I liked it and the more it made sense. You start to look at Stevens record and he has NHL HC experience and had success on the offense side as a HC. As assistant in LA, he coached a shut down defense that was always near the top the league. He's got two Stanley Cup rings as a asst. coach and a Calder Cup ring as a HC. I don't know if there was really better resume out there then that. I also think that success with the Phathoms will
be important for a young team the Kings will have next year. That cup winning team had a lot of great or solid future NHLers with Carter, Sharp, Richards, Seidenberg, Pitkanen and Umberger

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You're not being old school, your criticism is just bizarre.

Two cups in ten years and only three coaches is really good.

The Penguins have won two cups also over that same time span and had 5 coaches. Are they "too week to get it done"?

They've had 4 coaches in that time frame (Therrien, Bylsma, Johnston, Sullivan) and the Kings are moving on to their 4th coach as well entering next season, after Crawford, Murray and Sutter.

The Kings are coming off a season where they had the most amount of losses, least amount of wins, and thus their lowest winning percentage since 2008-09. They ended up with the 5th overall pick that season.

This team was stuck in the "black hole" in Sutter's last three seasons here.

 

[KINGS17]

You're not being old school, your criticism is just bizarre.

Two cups in ten years and only three coaches is really good.

The Penguins have won two cups also over that same time span and had 5 coaches. Are they "too week to get it done"?

The two cups is great. ONLY three coaches, and starting on their 4th in ten years is not really good.

As someone else posted it's all on the players now, and in particular Doughty and Kopitar. No more BS excuses about needing more help, or the system is too hard to play for 82 games. You don't get more help, because as players you sucked up all the cap space. Time to suck it up and make your play worthy of the salaries.

That's some nice cheery picking you're doing with the Pens. They were often handicapped by an injured Crosby's cap hit. They couldn't do anything long term to address that situation, because they were banking on him coming back.

I can cherry pick too, how many coaches has Chicago had over the last 10 years? Does Quenneville suddenly suck, or have Toews, Seabrook, etc. simply not performed up to their contracts?

 

[kingsfan28]

Why does this still not feel "official"? Nice presser, Kings.

Have to wait til Monday.

 

[possesthepuck]

I am happy for Stevens. This guy is a mastermind. A few years ago when I made my account I considered making my username with a reference to him lol

 

[DryIslandBartender]

I am happy for Stevens. This guy is a mastermind. A few years ago when I made my account I considered making my username with a reference to him lol

Mike Richards, is that you?

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

The two cups is great. ONLY three coaches, and starting on their 4th in ten years is not really good.

As someone else posted it's all on the players now, and in particular Doughty and Kopitar. No more BS excuses about needing more help, or the system is too hard to play for 82 games. You don't get more help, because as players you sucked up all the cap space. Time to suck it up and make your play worthy of the salaries.

That's some nice cheery picking you're doing with the Pens. They were often handicapped by an injured Crosby's cap hit. They couldn't do anything long term to address that situation, because they were banking on him coming back.

I can cherry pick too, how many coaches has Chicago had over the last 10 years? Does Quenneville suddenly suck, or have Toews, Seabrook, etc. simply not performed up to their contracts?

oK, now go back and see my post that shows the average coaching tenure is 2.4 years, and look at other teams you deem comparable, and you'll realize that outside of Q, the Kings have had the least amount of coaches in that timeframe. Hence, the criticism about the posts talking about the players as babies.

Tenure often isn't about whether a coach is 'good' or 'bad' obviously, it's often simply about change. Otherwise, Q wouldn't even have been back with the Hawks in the first place!

 

[KINGS17]

oK, now go back and see my post that shows the average coaching tenure is 2.4 years, and look at other teams you deem comparable, and you'll realize that outside of Q, the Kings have had the least amount of coaches in that timeframe. Hence, the criticism about the posts talking about the players as babies.

Tenure often isn't about whether a coach is 'good' or 'bad' obviously, it's often simply about change. Otherwise, Q wouldn't even have been back with the Hawks in the first place!

The average coaching tenure is not what we should be looking for, or willing to accept.

Do teams changing coaches every 2.4 years ever win anything?

The players are every bit as responsible as the coaching if not more so. Sadly, I think this position will be proven correct next season. Change for the sake of change isn't necessarily a good thing, and maybe, just maybe if a change is necessary it should be a different change.

 

[Legionnaire]

Do teams that keep their coaches long term like Ruff in Buffalo or Trotz in Nashville ever win anything? If Quenneville doesn't have three Cups to his name then he is long gone too.

 

[KINGS17]

Do teams that keep their coaches long term like Ruff in Buffalo or Trotz in Nashville ever win anything? If Quenneville doesn't have three Cups to his name then he is long gone too.

Ruff for some reason was beloved in Buffalo. Trotz is a special case IMO. Started with an expansion franchise and made them competitive rather quickly. Trotz did a good job in Nashville, and his relative early success bought him quite a bit of good will.

Bottom line if Stevens is fired after one or two seasons, it's on the players, not the coach.

 

[damacles1156]

The Players have ZERO excuses now.

ZERO ZERO ZERO.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

The average coaching tenure is not what we should be looking for, or willing to accept.

Do teams changing coaches every 2.4 years ever win anything?

The players are every bit as responsible as the coaching if not more so. Sadly, I think this position will be proven correct next season. Change for the sake of change isn't necessarily a good thing, and maybe, just maybe if a change is necessary it should be a different change.

That's damn near always the case, though. I don't disagree. I just think it's wrong to suggest the players are a bunch of coach killing babies when they've had the longest coaching tenures going on outside of Tippett and Q.

Their criticisms of Sutter were the same that came out of Calgary after he left, and were damn near the exact same things posters here said.

Marc Crawford was trash for this squad, don't see how his coaching 'murder' can be bemoaned.

Terry Murray's time had come, it was clear things were stagnant, and I know HIS tenure is where this narrative comes from--but I'd say the players responded to that pretty well for the next nearly 5 years.

So yes, I'd say comparing Kings coaching tenures to those successful teams is more than fair. Looking at the other teams that have won Cups that ARENT Chicago, you'll see even shorter lifespans.

 

[Reclamation Project]

The Players have ZERO excuses now.

ZERO ZERO ZERO.

Yeah, but what if he's mean, makes them compete hard in December, and they don't like him!