Confirmed with Link: Trade! Petersen & Walker & Grans and a 2024 2nd to Flyers : Kings 30% retention on Provorov and get Connauton and Hodgson

[SettlementRichie10]

This is the part that gets me.

It's basically the dream job.

You inherited hall of famers at C, D, and G. You got a chance at winning again with that squad, and when it failed, you got the go-ahead to rebuild.

So you still have the vets you want, and the myriad picks you need, to build the hell out of a roster, hire a coach, and make some noise.

This many years later--your goalies in the org are Copley, Villalta, and Portillo. Your LHDs are Anderson, a 2nd pairing dman who you traded a 1st for and multiple 2nds to keep for two years, and probably Durzi. None of your 1st round centers are actually playing center. None of your MYRIAD RHD prospects are getting significant NHL time. You're out of 1st round picks for the next two years, and are missing a lot of picks in the top four rounds. You're hitting waiver eligibility deadlines with all of your first picks, most of whom have yet to play more than 5 NHL games. NONE of your top prospects are on their 'ideal' or desired timelines. NONE. Oh, AND you're up against the cap, so you're running out of opportunities to band-aid your own self-inflicted shotgun wounds.

With AEG backing, a low-pressure market, sycophant media that won't hold your feet to the fire, and carte blanche to do basically whatever the hell you want--you finally make the playoffs again five years later without Doughty and Arvidsson and bow out in 7, run it back the next year, and go out even faster without even mounting pressure in most games--THIS is where we are at six years later. That is absolutely f***ing appalling.

So yeah Blake is absolutely OUT of the benefit of the doubt with me. i was ABSOLUTELY WRONG about him. Won't be the first time, certainly won't be the last, but might be the worst.

It’s okay, RJ. Not much is worse than me defending Lombardi not CBOing Richards in 2015.

 

[kingsfan28]

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.

I think the haters will hate no matter what he does. It pretty obvious that it's carried over since the Avs trade, then the return, then refusing to be traded, only to then sign in SJ and retire. He's burned his bridges with too many, this was even before he became GM. Now with him in charge and litterally hiring his entire wedding party to run various parts of the team, it's only worse. And rightfully so.

 

[Schmooley]

I think the haters will hate no matter what he does. It pretty obvious that it's carried over since the Avs trade, then the return, then refusing to be traded, only to then sign in SJ and retire. He's burned his bridges with too many, this was even before he became GM. Now with him in charge and litterally hiring his entire wedding party to run various parts of the team, it's only worse. And rightfully so.

There are probably a few that hated him from the get go but there are a lot that didnt. I defended all his moves but started to sour on him when he signed Danault and its snowballed from there. I wish him no ill will. Just dont like the direction he took the team. Its that simple.

 

[kingsfan28]

It’s okay, RJ. Not much is worse than me defending Lombardi not CBOing Richards in 2015.

Forgot about that one. I understand the logic behind that, coming off a cup win and all, but from the guy who thought he was the smartest man in the room, he sure wasn't there. Loyal to a fault.

 

[kingsfan28]

There are probably a few that hated him from the get go but there are a lot that didnt. I defended all his moves but started to sour on him when he signed Danault and its snowballed from there. I wish him no ill will. Just dont like the direction he took the team. Its that simple.

Totally understand. I saw the Danault signing as a total win. We got one of the best 2nd line shutdown centers to compliment Kopitar, when it was obvious the 2c position wasn't there yet. He's bought time for the younger guys, who hopefully with fill in one day. And a damn good leader in the room. I see the same quality's guy used to talk about with Richards.

 

[SettlementRichie10]

Forgot about that one. I understand the logic behind that, coming off a cup win and all, but from the guy who thought he was the smartest man in the room, he sure wasn't there. Loyal to a fault.

At the time, the logic was that Richards could pull his personal life together and be a solid top nine special teams center.

Looking back, though, it should’ve been obvious he had nothing left. He was barely a #4C in 2014. By 2015 he was barely an NHL player.

Just bad analysis all around by Lombardi (and me).

 

[SettlementRichie10]

I think the haters will hate no matter what he does. It pretty obvious that it's carried over since the Avs trade, then the return, then refusing to be traded, only to then sign in SJ and retire. He's burned his bridges with too many, this was even before he became GM. Now with him in charge and litterally hiring his entire wedding party to run various parts of the team, it's only worse. And rightfully so.

This is an outright lie.

Most of the “Blake haters” in this thread were some of his biggest defenders just two years ago.

People like Big King and myself were ambivalent toward him from the beginning, praised his good moves, but otherwise openly reserved judgment.

I can’t think of a single poster here who was full bore “f*** Blake” from day one. If you can, you need to provide some actual evidence. Otherwise you’re making shit up.

 

[kingsfan28]

This is an outright lie.

Most of the “Blake haters” in this thread were some of his biggest defenders just two years ago.

People like Big King and myself were ambivalent toward him from the beginning, praised his good moves, but otherwise openly reserved judgment.

I can’t think of a single poster here who was full bore “f*** Blake” from day one. If you can, you need to provide some actual evidence. Otherwise you’re making shit up.

I wasn't pointing at you as you seem to feel, most have gone or were on the other boards or now run around on twitter. I don't make shit up man. I've been here for a very long time.After Blake refused the trade under lombardi, people went balistic and just cut him off at the knees.

 

[kingsfan28]

At the time, the logic was that Richards could pull his personal life together and be a solid top nine special teams center.

Looking back, though, it should’ve been obvious he had nothing left. He was barely a #4C in 2014. By 2015 he was barely an NHL player.

Just bad analysis all around by Lombardi (and me).

That concussion in the blackhawks series started the end of his career. Glad he's gotten it together now from what I've heard.

 

[johnjm22]

The smart thing to do would be to have Doughty on LTIR for most the year.

Then you'd really have the flexibility to max some moves. He can come back the final month of the season like Stone and Kucherov do.

 

[tigermask48]

My hot take upon seeing some of the responses to this trade:

If you shake up a can of coke before you open it, then you deserve a gold star for cleaning up your mess when it explodes in your face. Under no circumstances should you have your intelligence questioned for shaking up the can to begin with.

 

[King'sPawn]

My hot take upon seeing some of the responses to this trade:

If you shake up a can of coke before you open it, then you deserve a gold star for cleaning up your mess when it explodes in your face. Under no circumstances should you have your intelligence questioned for shaking up the can to begin with.

But what if we microwave the can instead of shaking it?

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

My hot take upon seeing some of the responses to this trade:

If you shake up a can of coke before you open it, then you deserve a gold star for cleaning up your mess when it explodes in your face. Under no circumstances should you have your intelligence questioned for shaking up the can to begin with.

You think that's bad, you should see some of the takes when the deal was signed,

RJ, Kings17, Telos, Schurtes, were all fine with it.....Sol was opposed, so I will say he stayed consistent,

And now they are saying it was a mistake, it was a mistake at the beginning etc...kinda funny how that works....

Looking back 4 years later, everyone, can see it was a mistake....but at the time of the signing the terrible two brigade was applauding it, so either it was a good deal at the time that turned sour and he fixed it....which he should be given credit for....or not.

 

[tigermask48]

Well I was fine with the contract when he signed it so I guess that makes me part of that group.
To me the issue was never the contract, it was how he was handled after signing it. Cal signed this deal that was a statement of "this is OUR guy moving forward."

And then TMac and Blake did nothing to allow Cal to be THE guy despite him playing well. TMac especially continued to treat a clearly trending down Quick as the main guy in net.

I can't remember the date or specifics, but I seem to recall shortly after the deal was signed that Cal had his first start in like 3-4 games and he gets the win and a shutout. Quick starts the next game, gives up a handful of goals, Cal comes in and looks good. Quick starts the next game, and my thought was "that isn't how you handle the future starting goalie of your franchise."

There was never a point where Cal was treated as the de facto number 1 goalie in LA and now here we are wondering where these mental issues Cal clearly has came from.

 

[King'sPawn]

You think that's bad, you should see some of the takes when the deal was signed,

RJ, Kings17, Telos, Schurtes, were all fine with it.....Sol was opposed, so I will say he stayed consistent,

And now they are saying it was a mistake, it was a mistake at the beginning etc...kinda funny how that works....

Looking back 4 years later, everyone, can see it was a mistake....but at the time of the signing the terrible two brigade was applauding it, so either it was a good deal at the time that turned sour and he fixed it....which he should be given credit for....or not.

You're apparently not following the criticisms people have thoughtfully outlined... many times.

You're more interested in arguing with the critics than understanding their position, even if you find it disagreeable.

 

[Schmooley]

Well I was fine with the contract when he signed it so I guess that makes me part of that group.
To me the issue was never the contract, it was how he was handled after signing it. Cal signed this deal that was a statement of "this is OUR guy moving forward."

And then TMac and Blake did nothing to allow Cal to be THE guy despite him playing well. TMac especially continued to treat a clearly trending down Quick as the main guy in net.

I can't remember the date or specifics, but I seem to recall shortly after the deal was signed that Cal had his first start in like 3-4 games and he gets the win and a shutout. Quick starts the next game, gives up a handful of goals, Cal comes in and looks good. Quick starts the next game, and my thought was "that isn't how you handle the future starting goalie of your franchise."

There was never a point where Cal was treated as the de facto number 1 goalie in LA and now here we are wondering where these mental issues Cal clearly has came from.

This is true. I remember thinking the way he was handled didnt make any sense. He also looked good prior to that when Quick was injured also.

 

[kilowatt]

Well I was fine with the contract when he signed it so I guess that makes me part of that group.
To me the issue was never the contract, it was how he was handled after signing it. Cal signed this deal that was a statement of "this is OUR guy moving forward."

And then TMac and Blake did nothing to allow Cal to be THE guy despite him playing well. TMac especially continued to treat a clearly trending down Quick as the main guy in net.

I can't remember the date or specifics, but I seem to recall shortly after the deal was signed that Cal had his first start in like 3-4 games and he gets the win and a shutout. Quick starts the next game, gives up a handful of goals, Cal comes in and looks good. Quick starts the next game, and my thought was "that isn't how you handle the future starting goalie of your franchise."

There was never a point where Cal was treated as the de facto number 1 goalie in LA and now here we are wondering where these mental issues Cal clearly has came from.

This has been a relative issue for a long time. You have to be able to give young guys the opportunity to fill important positions. But it’s hard to give guys like Byfield and Kaliyev 18 minutes a night now that the expectation is to win.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

You're apparently not following the criticisms people have thoughtfully outlined... many times.

You're more interested in arguing with the critics than understanding their position, even if you find it disagreeable.

Understanding hypocrisy has never been my strong suite...

Tigermask has the SAME opinion.....but he's able to say he was fine with it when it was handed out, the handling of Peterson not so much, that's 100% valid, what's not valid is to be 100% for the contract when it was signed, and then 4 years later saying, well you can't give Blake kudos because he created the mess....that's hypocrisy.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

This has been a relative issue for a long time. You have to be able to give young guys the opportunity to fill important positions. But it’s hard to give guys like Byfield and Kaliyev 18 minutes a night now that the expectation is to win.

I don't think it is...hard to give Byfield and Kaliyev and Vilardi, and Kupari 18 min a night,

You just need to be able to surround them with players....Byfield, Kopitar Kempe, for another year, I'm good with, if Byfield is taking steps...

Vilardi with Fiala, I'm good with, if Vilardi is taking steps.... Kupari, I think is your 3rd line C, he needs to get up to 12-15, and Kaliyev needs to get up to where Byfield/Vilardi was

 

[bland]

This has been a relative issue for a long time. You have to be able to give young guys the opportunity to fill important positions. But it’s hard to give guys like Byfield and Kaliyev 18 minutes a night now that the expectation is to win.

But you aren't winning anyway.

That's the whole point.

 

[AbsentMojo]

But you aren't winning anyway.

That's the whole point.

That is the point. Its a whack a mole in the cap era - if you have too many vets in one area (e.g. wings) you pay the price elsewhere (D). Its comedy going into last season with Durzi as your 2LD and Edler as 3LD... when in an area he was stocked in (wingers) he adds one and doesnt subtract any wings. Im fine w that trade if he moves another wing for LD. Thus no room for Kaliyev to develop - where Blake flatly stated Kaliyev was going to be top 6 in 22/23 season. Seems they'd rather develop Durzi who has no future with the club in a position he was totally ill-suited. If you're going to make the case Kaliyev didnt get top 6 time becasue he wasnt ready, then you have to acknowledge the inconsistency having Durzi shit himself at 2LD.

 

[The Pale King]

That concussion in the blackhawks series started the end of his career. Glad he's gotten it together now from what I've heard.

Courtesy of all-time turkey Andrew Shaw.

We pay up the *** for internet up here in Canada, so every month I send $100-something bucks to Shaw Cable (there are really only two choices here, no competition for cable or internet). Thousands of dollars later, I still massively prefer my internet overlord Shaw to the absolute peat bog-mummy that is Andrew Shaw the former hockey player.

 

[Chazz Reinhold]

Courtesy of all-time turkey Andrew Shaw.

We pay up the *** for internet up here in Canada, so every month I send $100-something bucks to Shaw Cable (there are really only two choices here, no competition for cable or internet). Thousands of dollars later, I still massively prefer my internet overlord Shaw to the absolute peat bog-mummy that is Andrew Shaw the former hockey player.

It was Dave Bolland.

 

[Surf Nutz]

<

 

[The Pale King]

It was Dave Bolland.

You're totally right. Completely misremembered that incident. Shaw took an ugly run at a King when he was with Florida ... must have mixed them up. Still don't like the guy!

Way off topic now, ignore me, thanks!