Raccoon Jesus
Todd McLellan is an inside agent
Regardless of how I feel or don't feel about the context or the content...
I just wanted to say I really loved this metaphor.
I'll take it!
Regardless of how I feel or don't feel about the context or the content...
I just wanted to say I really loved this metaphor.
Jesse and the metaphor sitting in a tree....Regardless of how I feel or don't feel about the context or the content...
I just wanted to say I really loved this metaphor.
It's hilarious how people are staunchly defending Blake and unironically criticizing DL's moves while accusing Blake critics of not criticizing DL. While also accusing people of being irrational for talking about DL's choices from 7-8 years ago.Yes, that's exactly what happens when one compounds bad decisions with further bad decisions.
The rope you get at the start of your tenure is not the same you get 6 years in. It's why Cloutier is a footnote, and Lucic is a banner. It's why Kovalchuk is a funny side quest, and why Petersen is a catastrophe.
You earn or disearn the benefit of the doubt. Blake hasn't given us ANYTHING to think he's playing 4D chess. If anything, it's becoming increasingly clear his 'vision' is now one-year-at-a-time, not even 3-5 years into the future.
The King is dead! ; Long live the King!It's hilarious how people are staunchly defending Blake and unironically criticizing DL's moves while accusing Blake critics of not criticizing DL. While also accusing people of being irrational for talking about DL's choices from 7-8 years ago.
I'm just adding, I was critical of the developmental system before Blake. It's why I've staunchly opposed bland and K17 in their push to trade Kopitar. So my criticism has spanned multiple regimes and Blake has given no indication he's fixing issues from his side, either.
But we also get accused of bitching about everything.
Whenever Blake moves on (whether via quitting or firing), I wonder if these same people will suddenly start criticizing him when he's no longer the current regime.
It's hilarious how people are staunchly defending Blake and unironically criticizing DL's moves while accusing Blake critics of not criticizing DL. While also accusing people of being irrational for talking about DL's choices from 7-8 years ago.
I'm just adding, I was critical of the developmental system before Blake. It's why I've staunchly opposed bland and K17 in their push to trade Kopitar. So my criticism has spanned multiple regimes and Blake has given no indication he's fixing issues from his side, either.
But we also get accused of bitching about everything.
Whenever Blake moves on (whether via quitting or firing), I wonder if these same people will suddenly start criticizing him when he's no longer the current regime.
The Theory is a smart and good one -- a few vets to help the youth movement and have them learn the right way to practice, play, be professionals, etc. It started off well with Willie the Tank commander as HC.I was one of those guys who wanted Kopitar gone because I thought the idea of rebuilding with assets like this would become a hindrance. I was convinced by a few posters that in fact they’d be good mentors for the players who are coming in through the rebuild. I’ve learned that in theory that would be great unless they were used differently. And differently is what has happened to the Kings. Kopitar and Doughty have become roadblocks in the line up and nothing else. They have produced and played well but it’s not conducive for any player who you want to take the next big step forward when that role is already gone.
I now truly think that in order to do a rebuild you must trade any high profile player so that the positions are up for grabs. Have a good management and coaching system to be the one to groom the players. Not have players teaching players when the players doing the teaching are going to inhabit all the icetime anyways.
Grans + 2nd is cheap as hell to get rid of Petersen's contract.
You add Walker (who also has negative value) and only have to take back 2M?
It's very equitable for LA overall.
Yes, but I'm talking about the absolute value of the deal itself.Had they rolled with Cal one more season then bought him out next summer, his buyout would be less than than the Provorov retention. Keeping him in the minors in 23-24 would have been something like a $3.6 cap hit this year, just $1.6 more than Provorov's hit.
Simply buying out Walker this year would have resulted in cap hits of something like $1.5 for the next two seasons.
This deal only really saved them about $3 million in cap space, which was essential only to re-sign Gavrikov before free agency THIS summer.
The real issue is trading away a first round pick for an expiring contract. The rest is an expensive scramble to cover for that decision. Its just not as favorable as people think. Its minimal savings at an inflated premium just to keep someone on a team that cannot win even one round.
What makes you think that they care about development spots in ontario? They werent giving first round draft picks powerplay time down there at first.Petersen's cap hit in the AHL would be 3.8M. I don't think they want Petersen down there taking up a development spot.
Because they traded for Portillo.What makes you think that they care about development spots in ontario? They werent giving first round draft picks powerplay time down there at first.
They had Tynan and Nate Thompson playing last year. Hickey and Wolanin were there.
Two playoffs ago guys Byfield Vilardi Anderssen missed both ahl and nhl playoffs watching from the pressbox
The thing is, there is actual value to having valuable vets - provided they buy in.I was one of those guys who wanted Kopitar gone because I thought the idea of rebuilding with assets like this would become a hindrance. I was convinced by a few posters that in fact they’d be good mentors for the players who are coming in through the rebuild. I’ve learned that in theory that would be great unless they were used differently. And differently is what has happened to the Kings. Kopitar and Doughty have become roadblocks in the line up and nothing else. They have produced and played well but it’s not conducive for any player who you want to take the next big step forward when that role is already gone.
I now truly think that in order to do a rebuild you must trade any high profile player so that the positions are up for grabs. Have a good management and coaching system to be the one to groom the players. Not have players teaching players when the players doing the teaching are going to inhabit all the icetime anyways.
They will have a veteran goalie in Ontario playing with himBecause they traded for Portillo.
Yeah they'll probably have Portillo and Villita in Ontario.They will have a veteran goalie in Ontario playing with him
Had they rolled with Cal one more season then bought him out next summer, his buyout would be less than than the Provorov retention. Keeping him in the minors in 23-24 would have been something like a $3.6 cap hit this year, just $1.6 more than Provorov's hit.
Simply buying out Walker this year would have resulted in cap hits of something like $1.5 for the next two seasons.
This deal only really saved them about $3 million in cap space, which was essential only to re-sign Gavrikov before free agency THIS summer.
The real issue is trading away a first round pick for an expiring contract. The rest is an expensive scramble to cover for that decision. Its just not as favorable as people think. Its minimal savings at an inflated premium just to keep someone on a team that cannot win even one round.
The caveat is, that they cannot even teach them to grind well. Kupari, JAD and Kaliyev were barely speed bumps in their zone most nights. Kupari made a couple of nice plays here and there, but man, having a veteran group of 4th line role players would make a difference in the playoffs.The thing is, there is actual value to having valuable vets - provided they buy in.
Reading the tea leaves, of course, but it seemed to me that Kopitar was ambivalent with a rebuild - he just does what he's told. But Doughty, competitive guy that he is, didn't want the team to suck for years.
So at that point, when Blake "committed to a rebuild" it was on him to confirm with his vets that they would go along with it. If not, it was on Blake to move them.
Then you need to have a plan in place to put prospects in the roles you expect them to play - alongside equally skilled vets to insulate them a bit. It's a challenge to prospects, so you want to push them a bit, but within reason.
Once a prospect becomes his own player/man, and can be independent, then you have to start evaluating where everyone fits and start moving them accordingly.
It's straightforward but complex and delicate, because you want to push your prospects to grow without overwhelming them or setting them up to fail. You want to get them to learn how to apply their game at an NHL level, while still trying to ensure they aren't too one-dimensional.
It's why I was okay with the acquisition of Danault and Arvidsson. It was the perfect opportunity to weaponize the depth and high-picks made. And you saw how Anderson pairs with Doughty well. It works.
But for some reason, every forward prospect is expected to lern2grynd, and they're taking way longer to possibly reaching their potential.
Here is the thing. I am cool with Vets on a rebuilding team for sure. Where I make the distinction is what their role is. Rookie support is important but it becomes less important when those players likely block the rookies which is what is happenin.The thing is, there is actual value to having valuable vets - provided they buy in.
Reading the tea leaves, of course, but it seemed to me that Kopitar was ambivalent with a rebuild - he just does what he's told. But Doughty, competitive guy that he is, didn't want the team to suck for years.
So at that point, when Blake "committed to a rebuild" it was on him to confirm with his vets that they would go along with it. If not, it was on Blake to move them.
Then you need to have a plan in place to put prospects in the roles you expect them to play - alongside equally skilled vets to insulate them a bit. It's a challenge to prospects, so you want to push them a bit, but within reason.
Once a prospect becomes his own player/man, and can be independent, then you have to start evaluating where everyone fits and start moving them accordingly.
It's straightforward but complex and delicate, because you want to push your prospects to grow without overwhelming them or setting them up to fail. You want to get them to learn how to apply their game at an NHL level, while still trying to ensure they aren't too one-dimensional.
It's why I was okay with the acquisition of Danault and Arvidsson. It was the perfect opportunity to weaponize the depth and high-picks made. And you saw how Anderson pairs with Doughty well. It works.
But for some reason, every forward prospect is expected to lern2grynd, and they're taking way longer to possibly reaching their potential.
I agree. The idea of Lizotte and Lemieux working with a prospect is awesome.The caveat is, that they cannot even teach them to grind well. Kupari, JAD and Kaliyev were barely speed bumps in their zone most nights. Kupari made a couple of nice plays here and there, but man, having a veteran group of 4th line role players would make a difference in the playoffs.
Its like a dual-dulled sword. Can't move up to show their skills, can't win board battles and get pucks out and deep.
They absolutely must roll with Fiala - Byfield - Vilardi next year regardless of any defensive liabilities. Vilardi pushed through last year, but those two in particular need to hit the offense as fast possible this upcoming season. If you can't count on those two kids going into next summer, the Kings are going to be looking at burying them down the depth chart for good with the cap space they will surely be using on a high end forward with the expiration of Kopitar, Arvidsson and Roy's deals.I agree. The idea of Lizotte and Lemieux working with a prospect is awesome.
But they had Arthur Kaliyev, a sniper, put with role players.
So Kaliyev can't hone his offensive skill, because he's expected to grind. When prospects are already learning how to integrate their game in the NHL. Now they're expected to play a role they're not penciled in for?
If JAD had been placed with Lemieux/Lizotte instead, and had other prospects sprinkled through the lineup with other vets more apt for their role, I think the Kings would have had a better record and the youth would be further along.
I'd go with this:They absolutely must roll with Fiala - Byfield - Vilardi next year regardless of any defensive liabilities. Vilardi pushed through last year, but those two in particular need to hit the offense as fast possible this upcoming season.
BLuc’s been in charge since mid April 2017. That’s over 2000 days. The reason an increasing number of fans only see the negative in every successive move is that the benefit of the doubt ended after 2 seasons at the helm.
You don’t get to have infinite excuses after you shit the bed instead of winning, while being given every resource possible.
This is not exactly right.Had they rolled with Cal one more season then bought him out next summer, his buyout would be less than than the Provorov retention. Keeping him in the minors in 23-24 would have been something like a $3.6 cap hit this year, just $1.6 more than Provorov's hit.
Simply buying out Walker this year would have resulted in cap hits of something like $1.5 for the next two seasons.
This deal only really saved them about $3 million in cap space, which was essential only to re-sign Gavrikov before free agency THIS summer.
The real issue is trading away a first round pick for an expiring contract. The rest is an expensive scramble to cover for that decision. Its just not as favorable as people think. Its minimal savings at an inflated premium just to keep someone on a team that cannot win even one round.