Speculation: 2021-22 LA Kings News, Rumors, Roster discussion part III

[kingsboy11]

Continue here

Click to read more...

 

[Papa Mocha 15]

first! Anyone for trading Kopi for picks and a roster player or not yet?

 

[Sol]

How can anyone have a problem with the Kovalchuk signing. It made logical sense after we got curbstomped by Vegas. It was for only three years. Who cares? Nothing compared to the Lucic desperation trade.

 

[Islcey]

Completely unfounded proposal here..

To Seattle: pick #8, Rasmus Kupari, Austin Strand

To Los Angeles: Vladimir Tarasenko (50% retained), Jake Bean, future considerations*

*Seattle agrees to select Austin Wagner

Again no smoke to the fire just trying to think of something that may help both teams. Kings aquire an elite scorer with effectively a great contract and a potential long term answer on the left-side blueline. Kings acquire team needs without dealing the cream of the crop of current prospects/young players. Seattle lands two players who will be near the very top of their prospect list and a former T-Bird in Strand who has shown flashes of NHL potential. Strand also helps ease the blow of passing on Dunn & dealing Bean.

Too much value for Tarasenko & Bean??

 

[Ollie Weeks]

How can anyone have a problem with the Kovalchuk signing. It made logical sense after we got curbstomped by Vegas. It was for only three years. Who cares? Nothing compared to the Lucic desperation trade.

Kovalchuk was exactly the same disease the previous regime suffered from. They proved unable to honestly assess their team’s shortcomings. That’s the problem.

 

[Fishhead]

Completely unfounded proposal here..

To Seattle: pick #8, Rasmus Kupari, Austin Strand

To Los Angeles: Vladimir Tarasenko (50% retained), Jake Bean, future considerations*

*Seattle agrees to select Austin Wagner

Again no smoke to the fire just trying to think of something that may help both teams. Kings aquire an elite scorer with effectively a great contract and a potential long term answer on the left-side blueline. Kings acquire team needs without dealing the cream of the crop of current prospects/young players. Seattle lands two players who will be near the very top of their prospect list and a former T-Bird in Strand who has shown flashes of NHL potential. Strand also helps ease the blow of passing on Dunn & dealing Bean.

Too much value for Tarasenko & Bean??

I doubt Seattle retains anything in any trades, being in such a position of strength. They have so many pathways to building their team it doesn't make much sense to do so.

 

[Fishhead]

Kovalchuk was exactly the same disease the previous regime suffered from. They proved unable to honestly assess their team’s shortcomings. That’s the problem.

I dunno, they did a pretty good job of assessing the team's shortcomings when building the cup winners. Can't win 'em all.

 

[Ollie Weeks]

I dunno, they did a pretty good job of assessing the team's shortcomings when building the cup winners. Can't win 'em all.

We all know that, that isn’t exactly the point at this moment.

 

[Fishhead]

We all know that, that isn’t exactly the point at this moment.

Well, yeah, but that means they were actually able to pinpoint shortcomings, they just didn't succeed every time. The main shortcoming at the time (as always) was scoring, and he fit the bill. I don't think the Kovalchuk thing was a good move or a bad move, just one that didn't have a lot of downside, like a lottery ticket.

 

[Ollie Weeks]

Well, yeah, but that means they were actually able to pinpoint shortcomings, they just didn't succeed every time. The main shortcoming at the time (as always) was scoring, and he fit the bill. I don't think the Kovalchuk thing was a good move or a bad move, just one that didn't have a lot of downside, like a lottery ticket.

I’ll rephrase my original point. Bluntly stated,as I see it they were not bright enough to see that the team, ultimately, sucked. And then thought Kovalchuk was the solution to the problem they thought they had, which was scoring, when in fact it was a broader issue of sucking.

 

[Sol]

Kovalchuk was exactly the same disease the previous regime suffered from. They proved unable to honestly assess their team’s shortcomings. That’s the problem.

My issue is that there are still people who act like we lost assets due to the signing

 

[Reclamation Project]

Old man Kovalchuk outperformed Toffoli in 20 less games. Love that guy and loved the signing. It was awesome to see him on the Kings even if they went nowhere.

 

[johnjm22]

What irked me about signing Kovalchuk is that it was clear the Kings needed a center. Much more so than a winger.

Not being able to recognize what the team actually needed, makes me lose faith in the management team.

Luc also commented that AK was brought in to benefit the PP. However, anyone who takes a deeper look can see that Kovalchuk doesn't improve PP's. This shows another judgement error by management.

 

[King'sPawn]

Kovalchuk was defensible if they used him on the point and as an additional winger. Even if he didn't play with Kopitar, having another dangerous line and depth would have helped.

Putting him on the pointbfor the power play could have helped with the depth. Instead, he was put as a net-front presence.

Kovalchuk was defensible, albeit I understand disagreement. Kings coaches were playing checkers on a chess board though.

 

[HookKing]

Kovalchuk was exactly the same disease the previous regime suffered from. They proved unable to honestly assess their team’s shortcomings. That’s the problem.

Indeed, the team before signing Kovalchuk had the league's best D and PK. I cannot imagine why they thought a (zero risk) goal scorer would help. They obviously should have gone after better defensemen and goal-tending.

 

[Malice430]

Did we ever get around to re-signing AA?

 

[bland]

Kovalchuk was defensible if they used him on the point and as an additional winger. Even if he didn't play with Kopitar, having another dangerous line and depth would have helped.

Putting him on the pointbfor the power play could have helped with the depth. Instead, he was put as a net-front presence.

Kovalchuk was defensible, albeit I understand disagreement. Kings coaches were playing checkers on a chess board though.

If you want a good laugh, go back and read the Kovalchuk thread. Amazing how many people got it all wrong. I went back to try and link a response to a question piston asked, and spent a couple of hours eye rolling and face palming. The anti-Iafallo stuff is especially ridiculous.

The idea of adding a scoring UFA winger was defensible, not the player himself though. They had one shot at a major player and put it on an old guy who hadn't been in the league for half a decade, gave him three years, and didn't show any kind of understanding of the player himself.

They had nobody to play the kind of game Kovalchuk likes, and the idea that you can force an older, slower, one way winger into a defensive based system with mismatched players and think he will succeed just "because he did before" was such poor management.

And I disagree a bit here, he did get plenty of point time, it didn't work because nobody on that roster moved the puck quickly enough to set up one timers. And that was all Kovalchuk showed interest in. When that failed they couldn't justify the liability of him getting burned at the point so they moved him down low just to try and keep him involved. That didn't work either.

People keep saying that he was misused, which wasn't the case. He was a poor fit from the start. You can't expect two guys who demand to carry the puck across the lines to work. You couldn't expect Kovalchuk to thrive with that many defensive zone starts. You couldn't expect Kopitar to start looking for long cross ice passes to a winger who refused to support the play or seldom get involved with forecheck.

They had nobody that could allow Kovalchuk to carry the puck in, dish off, then float out to.the top of the circles to get a shot off. The team had no playmakers, and they weren't coached to look east-west. They relied on their wingers to win board battles and kick the puck back to the center for controlled breakouts. You couldn't expect a player of his age to suddenly change his style of game.

 

[bland]

Indeed, the team before signing Kovalchuk had the league's best D and PK. I cannot imagine why they thought a (zero risk) goal scorer would help. They obviously should have gone after better defensemen and goal-tending.

This is the kind of thinking that leads to mistakes like signing Kovalchuk.

When your best players all have their best seasons, and it makes no difference whatsoever, it requires a little more nuance than "hey, that guy used to score a bunch five years ago".

 

[HookKing]

This is the kind of thinking that leads to mistakes like signing Kovalchuk.

When your best players all have their best seasons, and it makes no difference whatsoever, it requires a little more nuance than "hey, that guy used to score a bunch five years ago".

What mistake? They didn't win the cup? neither did 30 other teams. What assets did they lose? No GM in his right mind is going to tear his team down when he has the best D and PK in the league. It is that sort of thinking that gets you fired, not to mention laughed at.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I’ll rephrase my original point. Bluntly stated,as I see it they were not bright enough to see that the team, ultimately, sucked. And then thought Kovalchuk was the solution to the problem they thought they had, which was scoring, when in fact it was a broader issue of sucking.

I think the broader issue, which is what they still suffer from, is the fact that the team had zero depth, and they depended too heavily on the same three players to carry the workload offensively (and defensively).

Signing Kovalchuk was like giving a Ponikarovsky of Nagy a three-year deal. They needed to patch a hole through free agency, and nothing of value was lost, and they also didn’t block any prospect from earning ice time because there weren’t any good enough to insert in a scoring role at the time those players were signed.

 

[johnjm22]

Here's the original Kovalchuk signing thread:
Confirmed with Link: - Kings announce signing kovalchuk to 3 year contract.

 

[Sol]

What irked me about signing Kovalchuk is that it was clear the Kings needed a center. Much more so than a winger.

Not being able to recognize what the team actually needed, makes me lose faith in the management team.

Luc also commented that AK was brought in to benefit the PP. However, anyone who takes a deeper look can see that Kovalchuk doesn't improve PP's. This shows another judgement error by management.

I don't see it that way. They used Kovalchuk for screen and tips. They didn't use him properly at all on the PP. And again, they wanted to get scoring but the coach was an idiot. On top of that, they got Kovalchuk as a UFA who has had an impressive goal scoring resume. Lastly, you take what you can get from the UFA pools. You take best player available, and if you remember, the Kovalchuk sweepstakes were a hot topic. So the Kings weren't the only teams desperate.

Wasn't it that disgustingly putrid Stevens who made the world's worst PP choices that slotted Kovalchuk as a freakin net front position.


There's nothing wrong about adding Kovalchuk at that time and point. It was logical.


That's not to say that Kovalchuk was amazing either. Forcing passes and terrible puck control made him lose the puck rather easily from what I remember.

 

[Sol]

Funny, reading that thread and seeing people just acting like that "third" year of the contract is suddenly a big deal when the team had nothing better to do with the capspace and Kovalchuk wasn't breaking the bank.

Just the typical people wanting to complain just to complain. Kovalchuk wasn't great, but you could have easily said that about the franchise as a whole.

Also... No assets were lost

 

[johnjm22]

I don't see it that way. They used Kovalchuk for screen and tips. They didn't use him properly at all on the PP. And again, they wanted to get scoring but the coach was an idiot. On top of that, they got Kovalchuk as a UFA who has had an impressive goal scoring resume. Lastly, you take what you can get from the UFA pools. You take best player available, and if you remember, the Kovalchuk sweepstakes were a hot topic. So the Kings weren't the only teams desperate.

Wasn't it that disgustingly putrid Stevens who made the world's worst PP choices that slotted Kovalchuk as a freakin net front position.


There's nothing wrong about adding Kovalchuk at that time and point. It was logical.


That's not to say that Kovalchuk was amazing either. Forcing passes and terrible puck control made him lose the puck rather easily from what I remember.

I never had much of an issue with the Kovalchuk signing because they didn't give up any assets. But my point still stands; the Kings needed a center, management never made any attempt to address that, and instead pursued a winger. This inability to recognize the issue makes me question their judgement.

Also, AK was never going to make much positive difference on the PP. That fact that management thought so, also makes them suspect.

 

[Sol]

I never had much of an issue with the Kovalchuk signing because they didn't give up any assets. But my point still stands; the Kings needed a center, management never made any attempt to address that, and instead pursued a winger. This inability to recognize the issue makes me question their judgement.

Also, AK was never going to make much positive difference on the PP. That fact that management thought so, also makes them suspect.

Not like they really gave him a chance to shine on the PP either. I do think that all things considered it wasn't a bad signing. You could maybe say that the Kings should have gotten a center, sure. But the signing itself wasn't bad.