2019-20 Kings News/Rumors

[KingsHockey24]

Well on the bright side tomorrow we play against Calgary. Maybe we'll actually show up for this game.

Also please dress MacDermid TM.

 

[kings11]

You only have to be 18 years old to play in the AHL. The age issue comes into play due to the CHL/NHL agreement. CHL does not want to lose their star players, the 18 and 19 year olds (and key to their business model and teams). So it's only players who are playing in the WHL, OHL or the Q where age becomes a restricting factor. Players coming out of Europe, the NCAA, National Development programs etc can play in the AHL at 18 or 19 years old. So for instance, if Turcotte leaves the NCAA after one season, then signs a pro contract but the Kings determine he is not quite ready for prime time at 19, he can play for the Reign next season. Kupari, who is only 19, is playing for the Reign this season too. Same thing Kempe did at 18 and 19.

After his season ends, Aiden Dudas can officially join the Kings/Reign right

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

MacDermid is injured.

 

[Jericho111091]

Play Imama!

 

[regulate]

After his season ends, Aiden Dudas can officially join the Kings/Reign right

Yes, if his OHL team is done for the year and the Reign are still playing, they can sign him to an ATO for the rest of the season or he can join if he has an NHL contract by then. Kings have to make a decision on him by June to determine if they want to offer him an NHL contract, as of today, he's not signed. Likely will make a decision on him in March/April.

 

[ibleedkings]

MacDermid is injured.

He was in warmups last night. Looked fine.

 

[regulate]

He was in warmups last night. Looked fine.

I think based upon your statement and the fact they moved Bjornfot down to ONT, he's probably ready to roll.

 

[KingsFan7824]

Well on the bright side tomorrow we play against Calgary. Maybe we'll actually show up for this game.

Also please dress MacDermid TM.

See I'm not sure. You know the Flames will want to get back for all the Doughty stuff, and when is the last time the Kings won a big game at home, especially against a division opponent? Not that the 8th game of the season is all that big, but with the hype that will be around it. Just this season so far, they're 1-3 on friendly ground, and gave up a 3 goal 3rd period lead in the win. If it's not 6-1 Calgary, with a hat trick for Tkachuk, it'll be a minor miracle.

 

[WHOneedsSOX]

I think based upon your statement and the fact they moved Bjornfot down to ONT, he's probably ready to roll.

I thought 18 year old players weren't eligible for the ahl? Or does this count towards his 10 game thing?

 

[regulate]

I thought 18 year old players weren't eligible for the ahl? Or does this count towards his 10 game thing?

The 9 games or less is only applicable to NHL games played. The minimum age for the AHL is 18, however, if you played in the any of the Canadian Junior Leagues, you cannot play in the AHL at 18 or 18 or 19 years old per the CHL/NHL agreement. European players, players that play in the USHL, National Development teams, or leave their NCAA team early can play in the AHL. Kupari is 19 and playing there this season, now joined by Bjornfot at 18. Both came from Europe so it's age is not an issue at long as the make the minimum of 18.

 

[BigKing]

See I'm not sure. You know the Flames will want to get back for all the Doughty stuff, and when is the last time the Kings won a big game at home, especially against a division opponent? Not that the 8th game of the season is all that big, but with the hype that will be around it. Just this season so far, they're 1-3 on friendly ground, and gave up a 3 goal 3rd period lead in the win. If it's not 6-1 Calgary, with a hat trick for Tkachuk, it'll be a minor miracle.

I've been amped for the Calgary games here in LA ever since the elbow but--outside of the one where Doughty lost his shit in the penalty box--the Kings have been very meek.

Oh, except last year when MacDermid tried to take out Bennett for the rest of the year with the biggest hit we saw last season. Sure, the Kings lost like 9 to negative 3 and MacDermid gave himself a concussion on the hit, but there were going to be fireworks in the 3rd if MacDermid wasn't injured. That was with Tkachuk scratched. Hopefully it is exciting tomorrow night because Calgary has taken over as the only real "must-see" opponent as a Kings fan because the Ducks rivalry significantly cooled last season and, even with Clifford getting concussed against Vegas last year, the Kings don't seem to mind that Vegas embarrassed them in the playoffs two years ago.

I guess, in summation, the common denominator in exciting Kings hockey is Kurtis MacDermid. I know there is this thought going around about how much more exciting they are this year but, really, the Calgary game this season was the only one that felt like a real hockey game. A combined 12 or 13 goals like in the Edmonton game doesn't automatically equal excitement when the goals being scored are generally sloppy. McDavid was exciting: the Kings not as much. Just a case of Kings hockey being back and, holy shit, they actually scored goals. Now we are back to not scoring for over two games in a row. Anyways, exciting hockey means two teams really caring about the win while also showing some real disdain for the opponent. We've had that one time this year. Hopefully, we get it again tomorrow.

 

[WHOneedsSOX]

The 9 games or less is only applicable to NHL games played. The minimum age for the AHL is 18, however, if you played in the any of the Canadian Junior Leagues, you cannot play in the AHL at 18 or 18 or 19 years old per the CHL/NHL agreement. European players, players that in the USHL, National Development teams, or leave their NCAA team early can play in the AHL. Kupari is 19 and playing there this season, now joined by Bjornfot at 18. Both came from Europe so it's age is not an issue at long as the make the minimum of 18.

Thanks! Great job explaining.

 

[crassbonanza]

I've been amped for the Calgary games here in LA ever since the elbow but--outside of the one where Doughty lost his **** in the penalty box--the Kings have been very meek.

Oh, except last year when MacDermid tried to take out Bennett for the rest of the year with the biggest hit we saw last season. Sure, the Kings lost like 9 to negative 3 and MacDermid gave himself a concussion on the hit, but there were going to be fireworks in the 3rd if MacDermid wasn't injured. That was with Tkachuk scratched. Hopefully it is exciting tomorrow night because Calgary has taken over as the only real "must-see" opponent as a Kings fan because the Ducks rivalry significantly cooled last season and, even with Clifford getting concussed against Vegas last year, the Kings don't seem to mind that Vegas embarrassed them in the playoffs two years ago.

I guess, in summation, the common denominator in exciting Kings hockey is Kurtis MacDermid. I know there is this thought going around about how much more exciting they are this year but, really, the Calgary game this season was the only one that felt like a real hockey game. A combined 12 or 13 goals like in the Edmonton game doesn't automatically equal excitement when the goals being scored are generally sloppy. McDavid was exciting: the Kings not as much. Just a case of Kings hockey being back and, holy ****, they actually scored goals. Now we are back to not scoring for over two games in a row. Anyways, exciting hockey means two teams really caring about the win while also showing some real disdain for the opponent. We've had that one time this year. Hopefully, we get it again tomorrow.

I have to disagree with the Kings only being sloppy, not trying and not being exciting. They are leading the league in scoring chances, ahead of the offensively loaded Maple Leafs. They are adapting to a new system and I think the goals will come as soon as the lines get cemented.

A team that does not try or care is not going to be leading the whole f***ing league in basically every single possession metric. If the Kings are good enough to be lazy and still do that, then pencil them in as Stanley Cup contenders if the coach ever motivates them.

 

[LAKings88]

Seems like all the Pacific teams will leave LA in the dust.

Edmonton
Vegas
Ducks
Flames
Sharks
Canucks
Coyotes
Kings

 

[BigKing]

I have to disagree with the Kings only being sloppy, not trying and not being exciting. They are leading the league in scoring chances, ahead of the offensively loaded Maple Leafs. They are adapting to a new system and I think the goals will come as soon as the lines get cemented.

A team that does not try or care is not going to be leading the whole ****ing league in basically every single possession metric. If the Kings are good enough to be lazy and still do that, then pencil them in as Stanley Cup contenders if the coach ever motivates them.

So they play a system that leads to a lot of shots. Great.

Everyone loves playing offense. No big deal. Being hard to play against is a different story.

I'm not the guy that just shits on advanced stats, but look at the results so far. I know you're searching for the positives but it's hard to get excited about a possession metric when they haven't scored for over two games.

Regardless, the game is a lot more than just shots and goals. There is still a lack of intensity that I chalk up to a lot of the vets on this team believing they will lose. They've been on winners and they know this isn't it. Since it isn't, they aren't going to run through a wall to win a puck, something they would do 12 years ago.

 

[crassbonanza]

So they play a system that leads to a lot of shots. Great.

It's not just a lot of shots. It is a system that leads to scoring chances and high danger chances at the highest rate in the league. This isn't the 2015 Sutter system of launching pucks from anywhere, they are getting to quality locations and getting shots through from there.

Everyone loves playing offense. No big deal. Being hard to play against is a different story.

They are also at or near the top of the league in control of play by those same metrics. They are middle of the pack in limiting chances, but so far ahead in creating them that overall they are a massive positive. They are hard to play against, they are just suffering from a league worst save percentage.

I'm not the guy that just ****s on advanced stats, but look at the results so far. I know you're searching for the positives but it's hard to get excited about a possession metric when they haven't scored for over two games.

It's not just a possession metric, it is damn near every single one out there. You don't have to get excited(though watching the team absolutely dominate whole periods at a time is pretty exciting for me), but you can't deny that it is a major positive to have underlying stats that look this good.

Regardless, the game is a lot more than just shots and goals. There is still a lack of intensity that I chalk up to a lot of the vets on this team believing they will lose. They've been on winners and they know this isn't it. Since it isn't, they aren't going to run through a wall to win a puck, something they would do 12 years ago.

I think this was my major gripe with your analysis. I can accept that you are let down with the team not scoring goals and giving up quite a few, but I think you are completely off base when you mention them lacking intensity. I have seen the team play the whole 60 minutes of damn near every game, fighting the whole way despite being down early on bad goals let in by Quick/Campbell. I have seen some of the most dominant periods from a Kings team in recent memory, constant line to line cycling and up ice pressure.

Again, if you honestly believe that this team lacks intensity then they are without a doubt the most skilled team in the league and perhaps of all time. To lead the entire f***ing league in SF, CF, FF, SCF, HDCF, xGF rates while at the same time not giving a f*** would be absolutely astounding.

 

[tny760]

 

[bland]

So they play a system that leads to a lot of shots. Great.

Everyone loves playing offense. No big deal. Being hard to play against is a different story.

I'm not the guy that just ****s on advanced stats, but look at the results so far. I know you're searching for the positives but it's hard to get excited about a possession metric when they haven't scored for over two games.

Regardless, the game is a lot more than just shots and goals. There is still a lack of intensity that I chalk up to a lot of the vets on this team believing they will lose. They've been on winners and they know this isn't it. Since it isn't, they aren't going to run through a wall to win a puck, something they would do 12 years ago.

I AM a guy who ****s on advanced stats. They mean absolutely nothing. Hockey is now and has always been a game of managing tone and momentum, rising and falling to occasions. Its winning or losing key battles, trusting or mistrusting your teammates. Recovering from or succombing to challenges.

The same folks who put stock in metrics also tend to be the ones who believe in luck to explain why the team with tbe best numbers loses. Its all just nonsense, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the game.

 

[The Tikkanen]

Help us Kurtis MacDermid, you're our only hope.

 

[Little Psycho]

Help us Kurtis MacDermid, you're our only hope.

Sad but true

 

[King'sPawn]

I AM a guy who ****s on advanced stats. They mean absolutely nothing. Hockey is now and has always been a game of managing tone and momentum, rising and falling to occasions. Its winning or losing key battles, trusting or mistrusting your teammates. Recovering from or succombing to challenges.

The same folks who put stock in metrics also tend to be the ones who believe in luck to explain why the team with tbe best numbers loses. Its all just nonsense, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the game.

That's an unfortunately narrow-minded and warped view. Especially since all teams use them in one way or another

 

[crassbonanza]

I AM a guy who ****s on advanced stats. They mean absolutely nothing. Hockey is now and has always been a game of managing tone and momentum, rising and falling to occasions. Its winning or losing key battles, trusting or mistrusting your teammates. Recovering from or succombing to challenges.

The same folks who put stock in metrics also tend to be the ones who believe in luck to explain why the team with tbe best numbers loses. Its all just nonsense, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the game.

There are quite a few advanced stats that I am not a fan of, GAR/WAR in particular annoy the shit out of me. However, most of the ones I am talking about are just discussing control of play. CF=shots directed at net, FF=shots directed at net that are not blocked, SF=shots for, SCF=scoring chances for, HDCF=High Danger scoring chances for. These aren't particularly advanced, they are simply showing what is actually happening on the ice. They are no more advanced than shots, hits, blocked shots, etc.

 

[The Tikkanen]

So when the Kings are successful in a a few advanced stats and still lose and finish in last place what does that mean? How much longer til Faust starts barking out advanced stats to try to convince King fans the team is good and you should buy tickets? By the way you can get suite tickets today for as low as $30.

 

[BigKing]

Not to sound out of touch, but I know what I see out there and it isn't good hockey no matter what the fancy numbers say.

Better than last year? I don't know. More fun? Sure. It's still not a lot of fun though.

 

[crassbonanza]

Not to sound out of touch, but I know what I see out there and it isn't good hockey no matter what the fancy numbers say.

Better than last year? I don't know. More fun? Sure. It's still not a lot of fun though.

Do you not remember the 1st period in Calgary? When was the last time you saw the Kings absolutely dominate another team that way for a whole period? Same thing with the Nashville game. I find it hard to believe you really don't think you have seen good hockey out there.

Those aren't fancy numbers, they are very basic numbers. The Kings are out chancing their opposition by a wide margin, I think we all can agree that that is a good thing.