GDT: 2022-23 season game 53 LA Kings vs Carolina Hurricanes @4:00pm 1/31/23

[johnjm22]

2012 Stanley Cup Playoff Predictions:

Official Site of the National Hockey League | NHL.com

The official National Hockey League website including news, rosters, stats, schedules, teams, and video.

www.nhl.com

21 of 23 picked the Canucks to beat the Kings.

Hardly anyone expected LA to win that series.

 

[Axl Rhoadz]

2012 Stanley Cup Playoff Predictions:

Official Site of the National Hockey League | NHL.com

The official National Hockey League website including news, rosters, stats, schedules, teams, and video.

www.nhl.com

21 of 23 picked the Canucks to beat the Kings.

Hardly anyone expected LA to win that series.

lol

 

[SettlementRichie10]

They're selling a product. Of course they're going to say that. That's how this works.

No, it’s really not. GMs are candid about rebuilds all the time, including Dean Lombardi himself in 2006.

I don’t know why you’re carrying Blake and Luc’s water here. They meant exactly what they said in 2017. And they said it in crystal clear plain English. This is not complicated.

 

[Herby]

The Kings were pretty big dogs in that series, I don't remember the exact number but you were getting a pretty good price if you bet on the Kings. Same thing in the 2nd round vs. St. Louis. In the 3rd round and final I think the Kings were betting favorites after people finally figured out they were an unstoppable force that spring.

 

[cyclones22]

The Kings were only that big of underdogs because of the hole that Terry Murray's style of play dug for them. They were 10 to 1 to open the season to win the Stanley Cup. How do I know? Because I collected from the Bellagio after the Playoffs were over.

I don't blame folks for picking the Canucks based on their full season body of work and their SCF appearance the season before. But the talent gap, there was none. Look back now and know that the Kings were greatly superior easily in defensemen and in goaltending.

After the trade deadline, the Kings were elite. All the numbers including win loss records said so. Once they started scoring goals with the addition of Jeff Carter, the potential was there to beat anyone. And anyone and everyone they did.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

The Kings were only that big of underdogs because of the hole that Terry Murray's style of play dug for them. They were 10 to 1 to open the season to win the Stanley Cup. How do I know? Because I collected from the Bellagio after the Playoffs were over.

I don't blame folks for picking the Canucks based on their full season body of work and their SCF appearance the season before. But the talent gap, there was none. Look back now and know that the Kings were greatly superior easily in defensemen and in goaltending.

After the trade deadline, the Kings were elite. All the numbers including win loss records said so. Once they started scoring goals with the addition of Jeff Carter, the potential was there to beat anyone. And anyone and everyone they did.

They were 20-something to 1 before the season. Then they went to 8-1 overnight with the Richards trade.

I only know because I was too wasted to place my bet and figured i could do it the next day, woke up, found out about MR incoming.

Not so fun fact, the only two years since 2000 that I haven't put 100 bucks on the Kings to win it all were 2012 and 2014

 

[SettlementRichie10]

Again, to be clear, no one - including me - is disputing that the Kings were underdogs according to the mainstream hockey media and Vegas . That’s not being debated. However, according to all the important underlying statistics, the Kings *should* have been the favorites. They were superior in almost every way to the Canucks leading up to that series, and we had a small group of Cassandras shouting it from the mountaintops at the time to little avail. That’s the point.

The 2012 Kings were not some plucky underdog story. That team was a sleeping giant that started to stir after Sutter was hired, and woke up entire when Carter joined the team. Every measurable statistic of hockey supports that.

And by the way, these last few pages of certain posters denigrating the 2012 Kings in an effort to prop up the Rob Blake era has to be one of the most delusional Stockholm syndrome self-gaslighting galaxy brain takes I’ve ever seen on this forum. The inability to acknowledge the faults in the present necessitates a rewrite of the past. Incredible. Human psychology at work, ladies and gentlemen.

 

[cyclones22]

They were 20-something to 1 before the season. Then they went to 8-1 overnight with the Richards trade.

I only know because I was too wasted to place my bet and figured i could do it the next day, woke up, found out about MR incoming.

Not so fun fact, the only two years since 2000 that I haven't put 100 bucks on the Kings to win it all were 2012 and 2014

That's as bad as my inability to place a second bet on the Kings in 2012. I was in Vegas when they traded for Jeff Carter. At the time the Kings were out of the playoffs and 25 to 1 or something ridiculous at that point. I wanted to drop another 50 and was passing the sports book when my family was like "Let's get out of this casino". So I just kept walking instead of getting in line to place that bet.

 

[KINGS17]

Again, to be clear, no one - including me - is disputing that the Kings were underdogs according to the mainstream hockey media and Vegas . That’s not being debated. However, according to all the important underlying statistics, the Kings *should* have been the favorites. They were superior in almost every way to the Canucks leading up to that series, and we had a small group of Cassandras shouting it from the mountaintops at the time to little avail. That’s the point.

The 2012 Kings were not some plucky underdog story. That team was a sleeping giant that started to stir after Sutter was hired, and woke up entire when Carter joined the team. Every measurable statistic of hockey supports that.

And by the way, these last few pages of certain posters denigrating the 2012 Kings in an effort to prop up the Rob Blake era has to be one of the most delusional Stockholm syndrome self-gaslighting galaxy brain takes I’ve ever seen on this forum. The inability to acknowledge the faults in the present necessitates a rewrite of the past. Incredible. Human psychology at work, ladies and gentlemen.

...but, but 8th seed (even though I think they finished 2 points out of 1st place in the Pacific Division).

 

[Choralone]

The advanced stat community was predicting the Kings to beat the Canucks in the first round back in 2012. The Kings possession stats were off-the-chart bonkers heading into the playoffs. There was a great article on SB Nation for a Philadelphia writer (Broadstreet Bullies) back then that I have to find sometime.

 

[cyclones22]

...but, but 8th seed (even though I think they finished 2 points out of 1st place in the Pacific Division).

People also conveniently forget that the Kings were the first team in the Pacific to clinch a playoff spot. So acting like they just squeaked into the playoffs is ridiculous.

 

[kilowatt]

Not really, I’m not accusing anyone of doing the wrong thing, that’s what you guys do. I have no idea what’s behind these decisions.

So where is criticism allowed?

 

[Axl Rhoadz]

So where is criticism allowed?

It’s not allowed for made up narratives.

 

[DoktorJeep]

Fans still debating the Lombardi cups 10+ years after the fact are the best evidence for the mediocrity of the BLuc era.

 

[SettlementRichie10]

Fans still debating the Lombardi cups 10+ years after the fact are the best evidence for the mediocrity of the BLuc era.

Good way to look at it.

If the Bluc era were even a quarter as successful as Lombardi’s era, no one would be talking about 2012.

 

[DoktorJeep]

Good way to look at it.

If the Bluc era were even a quarter as successful as Lombardi’s era, no one would be talking about 2012.

Nevermind success in this market.
If this regime generated a quarter of the hope as the Lombardi era, there would be fans wanting to raise Blake and Luc’s jerseys to the rafters at least two more times and throw in some statues in Ontario.

 

[Statto]

They were 20-something to 1 before the season. Then they went to 8-1 overnight with the Richards trade.

I only know because I was too wasted to place my bet and figured i could do it the next day, woke up, found out about MR incoming.

Not so fun fact, the only two years since 2000 that I haven't put 100 bucks on the Kings to win it all were 2012 and 2014

Back in ‘92 or something my local team started 4-0 and the bookies did not follow hockey and we were still 150-1 against. We hammered the opposition in all 4 games by double digit scores (the hockey was bad). So I placed a £20 bet on us to win the league…. We didn’t win again until the last weekend of the season, a run of something like 0-30. I’ve never bet on any of my teams since.

 

[johnjm22]

No, it’s really not. GMs are candid about rebuilds all the time, including Dean Lombardi himself in 2006.

I don’t know why you’re carrying Blake and Luc’s water here. They meant exactly what they said in 2017. And they said it in crystal clear plain English. This is not complicated.

It's true there are times when executives are honest about rebuilds. I recall the Rangers were some years ago.

But usually management will paint the rosiest picture possible for fans.

It's pretty obvious based on their actions they didn't have much conviction in this team being a contender.

 

[SettlementRichie10]

It's true there are times when executives are honest about rebuilds. I recall the Rangers were some years ago.

But usually management will paint the rosiest picture possible for fans.

It's pretty obvious based on their actions they didn't have much conviction in this team being a contender.

Painting a rosy picture is a far cry from “we believe this team can contend for more Stanley Cups.”

How much more direct can they be? A single year later, Blake went out and overpaid a past his prime Ilya Kovalchuk.

Blake literally told you he wasn’t rebuilding, and you’re refusing to believe it. Please come back to earth, dude.

 

[Butch 19]

My advice to anyone reading this thread is to start drinking now

one division title in 50 years,

one,

 

[bland]

It's true there are times when executives are honest about rebuilds. I recall the Rangers were some years ago.

But usually management will paint the rosiest picture possible for fans.

It's pretty obvious based on their actions they didn't have much conviction in this team being a contender.

Spending all of their available cap space on faded veterans and trying to trade the only assets available on Pacioretty tells you the opposite.

 

[Lt Dan]

one division title in 50 years,

one,

Who cares about those

Two cups>>>>Division title

 

[Statto]

Who cares about those

Two cups>>>>Division title

The Sharks?

 

[DoktorJeep]

Why would anyone living in the tiny village of SoCal wish for their hockey team to win cups and division banners? Of course we should just be happy to have relevance once every twenty years or so, at best.

 

[johnjm22]

Spending all of their available cap space on faded veterans and trying to trade the only assets available on Pacioretty tells you the opposite.

The Kings didn't take any action that indicated they had conviction in that team being a contender.

As soon as Blake took over, the Kings stopped trading futures.

Actions speak louder than words.