I doubt Mitchell plays 82 games, but Lombardi actually sounded a little hopeful about him a few weeks ago. We'll just have to see what happens.

Mind you, Mitchell did that same exact thing in the past before having a setback and having to miss the entire season.

More or less I believe the doubt is coming, at least on my end, from the lack of game play. He isn't a young guy, and he's taken what will be a year and a half break from competitive action once preseason rolls around. Who knows what this has done to him. He was A key when this team won the cup yes, but he is a year and a half removed from the game and that makes it hard to gauge his effectiveness. You almost NEED those insurance policies in Ellerby and Schultz. Otherwise you get what happened last year, where we have a lot of inexperience and we are essentially one bad game away from putting in Andrew Campbell (Which that's not a knock on Campbell, I think he deserves a shot). It just spoke to our lack of available depth on D last season.
- Jason_Lewis

you gotta give credit to DL for addressing this issue while staying within the lower cap. Shultz could end up being a steal. His game looks similar to Greene and he has a good career +/-.....seems like a good fit for the Kings. If he doesnt produce...then at 750k (or whatever the amount is) no big loss.

you gotta give credit to DL for addressing this issue while staying within the lower cap. Shultz could end up being a steal. His game looks similar to Greene and he has a good career +/-.....seems like a good fit for the Kings. If he doesnt produce...then at 750k (or whatever the amount is) no big loss.
- dprice818

for what its worth...the cap fans ive spoken with have all said that schultz isnt physical at all. soft was the word that was repeatedly used. to be clear, they had good things to say as well but if hes any part of soft...then greene wouldnt be the comparison id use.

that said, i think youre spot on in your assessment of DL in regards to finding cheap alternatives in case WM cant go. between schultz, martinez & ellerby we should be fine. especially considering that, compared to last year, we'll have greene & regerh right from the start.

you gotta give credit to DL for addressing this issue while staying within the lower cap. Shultz could end up being a steal. His game looks similar to Greene and he has a good career +/-.....seems like a good fit for the Kings. If he doesnt produce...then at 750k (or whatever the amount is) no big loss.
- dprice818

Wait until you see Shultz play for a while, then re-post this.

the kings would be crazy to not take eller for clifford.

pretty sure montreal would laugh at the kings if we offered that but...eller is 24, 6'2" 210, left handed, had 30 pts in 46 gms and was a plus 8.
since you're a kings fan i wont post cliffy's numbers but even including all the little things that we both know clifford does...imo the kings would gobble eller up in that trade without hesitation.

in less words ill state that i feel the same about the bourque & moen for cliffy and mitchell deal. that trade can only be made if mitchell is healthy and imo it would be silly to trade a healthy mitchell for the two guys you mention. not to mention the bad contracts both those players have(a 5.1m cap hit).

respect your obvious passion. respect but disagree with your opinion.
go kings.
- good2b_the_king

Oh if Montreal offered Eller for Clifford straight up, I'd take it in a second, especially since Clifford is supposedly having contract issues. However, Montreal would be stupid to do that. If we wanted Eller, we'd have to either give up a quality prospect (Pearson, Vey, Toffoli, Forbort) and a pick, or a top-six forward (go see the Cloutier/Yost trade wars for their take on the Eller to LA trade), and I wouldn't want to do that for a center, since the gaping hole we have is on the wing.

As for the Mitchell/Clifford for Bourque/Moen trade, I would do this because it fills a glaring need for both teams. The Kings have been planning for a Mitchell-less defense for a while now, pretty much since the beginning of last season. I love Willie Mitchell -- we would not have won the cup without him -- but even if he is healthy, we pretty much have him for the rest of this year and that's it. There's going to be a changing of the guard at defensive defenseman for the Kings in the next two years, with older defensemen like Mitchell & Regehr being replaced by younger guys like Forbort & Ellerby.

We currently have 9 one-way defensemen on the roster, two of which will either need to be traded, demoted, or waived. We can either dump two of the borderline NHLers like Ellerby and Schultz for little to no return, or we can trade one of the better ones and upgrade at other positions where we are lacking (2nd line LW). Yes, Schultz would be a downgrade from Mitchell at defense, but Bourque would be an upgrade over anyone we have for the 2nd line role, and Moen is an upgrade over King and/or Carcillo.

In the last two seasons the Kings have struggled to score, but our defense has been exceptional (even without Mitchell). You have to trade good players to get good players, and all four of the players in this deal are good players. Seeing our lineup at this juncture, I just think that Bourque & Moen make the Kings a better team than Mitchell & Clifford do.

first off, lets be clear about the fact that the kings d is drastically weaker without WM than with WM...right? replacing WM with any one of elleby, martnez or schultz is a major downgrade whether the kings have been preparing for his departure or not...right?

assuming we agree on that...i would not be willing to make that downgrade for such a marginal upgrade up front...especially considering the 5.2m(just under) total cap hit for the next 3 years that would come with those 2 players. marginal? yes marginal. RB was a minus player(on a mostly plus team last year) that has only put up 37 pts in the last 103 gms(last 2 yrs). furthermore, have you asked yourself why a team that has such a desire to get bigger and stronger would be willing to trade the 6'2" 213 RB? just doesnt make sense.

ultimately...id rather not downgrade at D, id way rather have toffoli in the top 6 and clifford in the bottom 6 than RB and TM and id most certainly rather have just under 5.2 in cap flexibilty for the the next 3 years than have RB and TM.

that said, its just my opinion and if the kings were to make tha move and RB was to rediscover his game and put up three 50+ point seasons while playing good kings hockey then id be more than willing to accept that production and admit that i was wrong.

either way...it will be interesting to see what the kings really do end up doing, reading yours and other kings fans opinions and throwing my two cents in along the way.

go kings.

first off, lets be clear about the fact that the kings d is drastically weaker without WM than with WM...right? replacing WM with any one of elleby, martnez or schultz is a major downgrade whether the kings have been preparing for his departure or not...right?

assuming we agree on that...i would not be willing to make that downgrade for such a marginal upgrade up front...especially considering the 5.2m(just under) total cap hit for the next 3 years that would come with those 2 players. marginal? yes marginal. RB was a minus player on a mostly plus team last year that has only put up 37 pts in the last 103 gms(last 2 yrs). furthermore, have you asked yourself why a team that has such a desire to get bigger and stronger would be willing to trade the 6'2" 213 RB? just doesnt make sense.

ultimately...id rather not downgrade at D, id way rather have toffoli in the top 6 and clifford in the bottom 6 than RB and TM and id most certainly rather have just under 5.2 in cap flexibilty for the the next 3 years than have RB and TM.

that said, its just my opinion and if the kings were to make tha move and RB was to rediscover his game and put up three 50+ point seasons while playing good kings hockey then id be more than willing to accept that production and admit that i was wrong.

either way...it will be interesting to see what the kings really do end up doing, reading yours and other kings fans opinions and throwing my two cents in along the way.

go kings.
- good2b_the_king

I would say that Rene Bourque's decrease in production over the last three seasons had more to do with the team that he was playing on than him losing his game. Take a look at his numbers from 2011-12. He had 13g in 38 games with Calgary, then 5g in the same number of games after he was traded to Montreal. He didn't lose his game overnight, he just wasn't a good fit there.

The same comparison could be made for Dustin Penner. He had several 20-goal seasons in Anaheim and Edmonton, then he got traded to LA and his numbers went down the toilet. Penner is somewhat of a lazy player that coasts around the offensive zone and waits for pucks, then puts them in the net. That style of player can produce in offensive systems like Anaheim and Edmonton -- not so much in LA. I bet you Penner puts up 20+ goals again this season playing on a line with Getzlaf and Perry.

As you said, Montreal is looking to size up and play a much more physical, possession-style game. Calgary was a team that had size and speed -- and Bourque excelled there. Montreal had smaller skill players, who relied on finesse to score goals -- Bourque didn't do well there. LA has one of the biggest teams in the NHL, leads the NHL in possession (Corsi & Fenwick Close), and is getting much faster with the acquisition of Frattin & promotion of Toffoli. Here is a review of Bourque from Hockey's Future:

"Gritty, skilled player. Great forecheck, excellent effort. Pretty good speed. Very intense."

Sounds exactly like the type of player that Dean Lombardi and Darryl Sutter love. Bourque would do well in the Kings system. Plus the Kings already have two natural right wingers that are slotted for the left side in Brown and Frattin, and two natural centers playing on the RW in Carter and Lewis. Moving players around to play other positions can work, but it is not ideal, especially when it's with half of your forwards. Bourque has several years of experience on the left and is a left-handed shot, unlike Brown, Toffoli, and Frattin who are all righties. Bourque is not only more than just a marginal upgrade, he is, to quote Dean Lombardi, "a good fit."

I don't know whether Montreal would accept that this trade. I'm pitching this trade from the Kings perspective, you would need to ask a Montreal fan whether they would do it or not. I do know that Carey Price got undressed in last year's playoffs because their defense decided not to show up, so Mitchell would definitely be a welcome addition for them there. He did wonders for Drew Doughty's offensive game, I'm sure he could do the same for PK Subban. Kyle Clifford brings a Steve Ott / Dan Carcillo / Sean Avery style edge to the game, with some offensive upside. I love Travis Moen, he plays a great physical game, but he's not really an agitator. We have Dan Carcillo to fill that role now, Montreal does not. I love Kyle Clifford too and I would love to keep him, but contract negotiations don't sound like they're going too well, and we all know what Lombardi does with players not named Drew Doughty that hold out for more money (just ask Mike Cammalleri and Patrick O'Sullivan). I would argue that Clifford is more valuable than Moen to Montreal because he is 22 and will be restricted until at least 2018, while Moen will be a UFA in 2016.

I agree that replacing Mitchell with Schultz or Ellerby is a downgrade (Martinez is an offensive defenseman, so that's apples to oranges). Whether it's a "major" downgrade depends on whether Willie Mitchell is the same Willie Mitchell from 2011-12. At 36, he's no spring chicken, and he hasn't played any competitive hockey in over a year. This all assumes that he can stay healthy for entire year. something he has had difficulty doing throughout his career. All of those are very big "ifs."

As far as the salary cap is concerned, the only season we have to worry about is this season. The NHL made $2.4B in HRR last season, even with the shortened season. Analysts estimated that if there would have been a full season, HRR would have been $4.1B, which, under the new system, would have meant a salary cap of $78.7M. Check out my post here for calculations and references to the salary cap (about halfway down the page): http://lakingsinsider.com...or-another-year/#comments There are going to be five outdoor games this year, which are gold mines for the NHL. There is going to be plenty of money available for 2014-15 and 2015-16.

Sorry for the book, there was a lot to address.

@341

on willie mitchell

first off, the whole premise of this deal is that WM is healthy and at the least very close to what he was. period. you cant talk about MTL pairing him with PK in one breath and then, when trying to minimize the downgrade, point out that we cant be sure what mitchell we'll see this year. no matter what perspective youre looking at this from(kings vs mtl) its crazy. so, like i said, for the sake of this discussion we both have to consider WM healthy and playing relatively close to his previous level.

that said, lets not argue semantics.

as simple as can be...can i get you to admit that replacing WM for any of the 3 discussed replacements is a major downgrade? i hope so. otherwise we're wasting each others time and to me there is no doubt about this.

on rene bourque

you claim bad fit. i dont completely buy it but ok. in 2011 he had 3 assists in 38 games for calgary and 3 assists in 38 games for MTL for a grand total of 6 assists in 76 games. whats his excuse for this? he not an assist guy? ok, then why would you put him on the 2nd line with carter who only had 7 assists in 48 games last year? seems like another bad fit.

you use penner as an example of a bad fit to support your bad fit excuse of why RB's production dropped. you also used lazy to describe him. ill go further and point out that consistancy was a problem. well, guess what, the two words ive heard used by countless MTL fans to describe RB? lazy and inconsistant. which is another reason why id rather pass on this deal. the last thing ill ask is if we both agree that MTL is switching to a bigger and stronger team and style of play then(once again) why would they want to get rid of RB again? the simple answer is because of his inconsitancy and because his lazyness has dramatically effected his game in a negative way.

in regards to positions? lombardi's been pretty clear in his willingness to not care about positions. good fit? i disagree for the reasons above and because we may have a lot of cap space(or not so much) but id argue that RB isnt what he wants to use his cap space on. just my opinion.

on the cap space...is my math wrong or my formula? i thought it was half of 4.1B divided by 30 = 68.7m and not 78.7? ill check myself but figured id ask 1st.


ultimately to sum it up again

•imo losing mitchell is a major downgrade
•imo RB is a marginal upgrade and regardless of position id rather have toffoli in the top 6 than RB.
•regardless of cap space i dont think using 5.2 of it on those 2 players for the next 3 yrs is worth it.

go kings.

@341

on willie mitchell

first off, the whole premise of this deal is that WM is healthy and at the least very close to what he was. period. you cant talk about MTL pairing him with PK in one breath and then, when trying to minimize the downgrade, point out that we cant be sure what mitchell we'll see this year. no matter what perspective youre looking at this from(kings vs mtl) its crazy. so, like i said, for the sake of this discussion we both have to consider WM healthy and playing relatively close to his previous level.

that said, lets not argue semantics.

as simple as can be...can i get you to admit that replacing WM for any of the 3 discussed replacements is a major downgrade? i hope so. otherwise we're wasting each others time and to me there is no doubt about this.

on rene bourque

you claim bad fit. i dont completely buy it but ok. in 2011 he had 3 assists in 38 games for calgary and 3 assists in 38 games for MTL for a grand total of 6 assists in 76 games. whats his excuse for this? he not an assist guy? ok, then why would you put him on the 2nd line with carter who only had 7 assists in 48 games last year? seems like another bad fit.

you use penner as an example of a bad fit to support your bad fit excuse of why RB's production dropped. you also used lazy to describe him. ill go further and point out that consistancy was a problem. well, guess what, the two words ive heard used by countless MTL fans to describe RB? lazy and inconsistant. which is another reason why id rather pass on this deal. the last thing ill ask is if we both agree that MTL is switching to a bigger and stronger team and style of play then(once again) why would they want to get rid of RB again? the simple answer is because of his inconsitancy and because his lazyness has dramatically effected his game in a negative way.

in regards to positions? lombardi's been pretty clear in his willingness to not care about positions. good fit? i disagree for the reasons above and because we may have a lot of cap space(or not so much) but id argue that RB isnt what he wants to use his cap space on. just my opinion.

on the cap space...is my math wrong or my formula? i thought it was half of 4.1B divided by 30 = 68.7m and not 78.7? ill check myself but figured id ask 1st.


ultimately to sum it up again

•imo losing mitchell is a major downgrade
•imo RB is a marginal upgrade and regardless of position id rather have toffoli in the top 6 than RB.
•regardless of cap space i dont think using 5.2 of it on those 2 players for the next 3 yrs is worth it.

go kings.
- good2b_the_king

THAT ABOUT SUMS IT UP.

for what its worth...the cap fans ive spoken with have all said that schultz isnt physical at all. soft was the word that was repeatedly used. to be clear, they had good things to say as well but if hes any part of soft...then greene wouldnt be the comparison id use.

that said, i think youre spot on in your assessment of DL in regards to finding cheap alternatives in case WM cant go. between schultz, martinez & ellerby we should be fine. especially considering that, compared to last year, we'll have greene & regerh right from the start.
- good2b_the_king

I hear ya, I have read the soft player stuff too. No offense to Greene's game. I mainly meant that their style of play is similar in that they are both stay at home D men and have size. His plus minus and size says you cant skate through him. Also you gotta think of being a fan of a team that has a guy that size, making the money he was making.......he was obviously criticized for not meeting expectations. I hope he wants to prove something with a system that fits his style better than the caps and I hope Ersberg is wrong and I will want to repost what I wrote earlier. Hes a good, cheap gamble.....GO KINGS!!!

Awesome discussion guys. Seriously.

@341

on willie mitchell

first off, the whole premise of this deal is that WM is healthy and at the least very close to what he was. period. you cant talk about MTL pairing him with PK in one breath and then, when trying to minimize the downgrade, point out that we cant be sure what mitchell we'll see this year. no matter what perspective youre looking at this from(kings vs mtl) its crazy. so, like i said, for the sake of this discussion we both have to consider WM healthy and playing relatively close to his previous level.

that said, lets not argue semantics.

as simple as can be...can i get you to admit that replacing WM for any of the 3 discussed replacements is a major downgrade? i hope so. otherwise we're wasting each others time and to me there is no doubt about this.

on rene bourque

you claim bad fit. i dont completely buy it but ok. in 2011 he had 3 assists in 38 games for calgary and 3 assists in 38 games for MTL for a grand total of 6 assists in 76 games. whats his excuse for this? he not an assist guy? ok, then why would you put him on the 2nd line with carter who only had 7 assists in 48 games last year? seems like another bad fit.

you use penner as an example of a bad fit to support your bad fit excuse of why RB's production dropped. you also used lazy to describe him. ill go further and point out that consistancy was a problem. well, guess what, the two words ive heard used by countless MTL fans to describe RB? lazy and inconsistant. which is another reason why id rather pass on this deal. the last thing ill ask is if we both agree that MTL is switching to a bigger and stronger team and style of play then(once again) why would they want to get rid of RB again? the simple answer is because of his inconsitancy and because his lazyness has dramatically effected his game in a negative way.

in regards to positions? lombardi's been pretty clear in his willingness to not care about positions. good fit? i disagree for the reasons above and because we may have a lot of cap space(or not so much) but id argue that RB isnt what he wants to use his cap space on. just my opinion.

on the cap space...is my math wrong or my formula? i thought it was half of 4.1B divided by 30 = 68.7m and not 78.7? ill check myself but figured id ask 1st.


ultimately to sum it up again

•imo losing mitchell is a major downgrade
•imo RB is a marginal upgrade and regardless of position id rather have toffoli in the top 6 than RB.
•regardless of cap space i dont think using 5.2 of it on those 2 players for the next 3 yrs is worth it.

go kings.
- good2b_the_king

Ok for sake of argument, we will assume that the Kings remaining defensemen are "major" downgrades from Willie Mitchell and that Mitchell is healthy to start the season, but injury prone.

Even so, we only have one-year left of Willie Mitchell, whereas we would get three years of Bourque and Moen. Like I said, you have to give up good players to get good players, and with 9 defensemen on the roster, we have to give up someone. Willie Mitchell would allow us to solve our defensive logjam while giving us an upgrade at other positions, while still remaining under the cap. Even with Willie Mitchell at 100%, I would make this trade because it allows us to get a better return for Clifford, who is having contractual issues, and it gives us a left-handed player on the left side, something we don't currently have. I would argue that Bourque is a "major" upgrade over anyone available (including Toffoli) to our 2nd line LW position, something that we have been missing for nearly a decade. Also, Darryl Sutter decides at what positions players will be used, not Lombardi. Lombardi's job is to acquire the talent to be used by the team, Sutter's job is to use the talent provided to win games.

As far as Rene Bourque is concerned, I have not heard anything that questions his work ethic. Everything I have gathered from reading about him, watching him play, and listening to other fans says that he has an excellent work-ethic, and that his major drawback is his tendency to get over-enthusiastic and take stick penalties (kinda like Jarret Stoll). Even Michel Therrien praised Bourque's work-ethic when he took over. Consistency was a problem on Montreal, sure, but I don't think his effort is in question.

Also, if you look at Bourque's numbers from 2008-19 to 2010-11 in Calgary, he had 21-19=40, 27-31=58, and 27-23=50. Those are very respectable numbers, and don't show him to be inconsistent or "not an assist guy." Again, like Penner, I would argue that he just wasn't a good fit on the team. I think Kings fans would argue that Boyle, Moulson, & Purcell were bad players on the Kings, and they all moved on to greener pastures and are flourishing on their new teams. Bourque hasn't worked out in Montreal, so I'm sure they're eager to get rid of him, regardless of size, but only if they can net a decent return. They're not going to put him on waivers or anything.

As far as the formula for calculating the salary cap, you're almost right. It's 50% of the HRR, minus player benefits ($90 million in 2011-12), increased by 5% (for inflation), divided by 30, which gives you the salary midpoint. The salary cap is 15% more than that, the salary floor is 85% of that. For simplicity's sake, you can just do half of 4.1B, divided by 30, times 1.15. It comes out to almost the same.

@341

good stuff and thanks for the cap info.

some food for thought...

on RB vs Toffoli
RB had 16pts in 32gms combined(reg+playoffs)
Toffoli had a combined 11 points in 22 gms.
the same production and Toffoli is 21. RB is 31.

imo Toffoli is a top 6 player and i think he needs to play top 6 minutes.
personally id rather have toffoli playing with richards and carter than RB. regardless of postion. especially considering the obvious chemistry that carter and toffoli showed in the playoffs. bottom line for me, is that it would take a much better player than RB for it to make sense to not have toffoli in the top 6. the type of player(LW) that we have very little chance of acquiring. for example, Vanek from buffalo. i still wouldnt like it but i could put toffoli on the 3rd line for him. not RB. i just think that highly of toffoli.

on RB.

we've officially covered him(lol). you pointed out the years he produced. i pointed out the years he didnt. the same about assists. though id like to point out that ive never said that hes never produced...just that hes been inconsistent. regardless, like i said before if we made the trade id be rooting for him and id love it if he put up 25 goals and 50+ points. i would just hope that it wouldnt be at the cost of toffoli.


moving on and on a happier note(hopefully) im curious what type of production you see from TT in the next 3 years? maybe we just disagree on how well this kid is gonna help fill that 6th forward spot? just a thought.
personally, i see TT putting up goal totals of 20+,30,35 in the next 3 years. maybe im crazy, maybe thats best case scenario or maybe im shortchanging him? who really knows? but thats how highly i think of this kid.

once again, thanks for the discussion and interested to hear your guesstimate(sp?) on toffoli.

go kings.

@341

good stuff and thanks for the cap info.

some food for thought...

on RB vs Toffoli
RB had 16pts in 32gms combined(reg+playoffs)
Toffoli had a combined 11 points in 22 gms.
the same production and Toffoli is 21. RB is 31.

imo Toffoli is a top 6 player and i think he needs to play top 6 minutes.
personally id rather have toffoli playing with richards and carter than RB. regardless of postion. especially considering the obvious chemistry that carter and toffoli showed in the playoffs. bottom line for me, is that it would take a much better player than RB for it to make sense to not have toffoli in the top 6. the type of player(LW) that we have very little chance of acquiring. for example, Vanek from buffalo. i still wouldnt like it but i could put toffoli on the 3rd line for him. not RB. i just think that highly of toffoli.

on RB.

we've officially covered him(lol). you pointed out the years he produced. i pointed out the years he didnt. the same about assists. though id like to point out that ive never said that hes never produced...just that hes been inconsistent. regardless, like i said before if we made the trade id be rooting for him and id love it if he put up 25 goals and 50+ points. i would just hope that it wouldnt be at the cost of toffoli.


moving on and on a happier note(hopefully) im curious what type of production you see from TT in the next 3 years? maybe we just disagree on how well this kid is gonna help fill that 6th forward spot? just a thought.
personally, i see TT putting up goal totals of 20+,30,35 in the next 3 years. maybe im crazy, maybe thats best case scenario or maybe im shortchanging him? who really knows? but thats how highly i think of this kid.

once again, thanks for the discussion and interested to hear your guesstimate(sp?) on toffoli.

go kings.
- good2b_the_king

I'd like to see Toffoli play on the "third" line with Frattin and Stoll. I don't know if you've had a chance to see Frattin play, but that kid is really good. Stoll played on a line with Lewis and Penner/King/Clifford for most of the season, and they did an excellent job as the shutdown line, but they didn't really do much on the score sheet. Stoll has shown in the past that he has the skill to be a 20+ goal scorer, and I would like to see him used in that role again. With a line of Frattin-Stoll-Toffoli, I can see all of the players on that line scoring 20+ goals.

One of the reasons that we have had trouble scoring over the past few seasons is that we really only have two lines that can score consistently. It is one of the reasons why we did so well at home, and so poorly on the road. When at home, the Kings get the last line change, so the opponent doesn't get a chance to get their desired match ups against our lines. However, when on the road, they can match up however they want, and they generally play their best defenders against the Kopitar & Richards lines. If we use the Frattin-Stoll-Toffoli line, we will have three lines that are capable of scoring on a regular basis, and teams will have a much tougher time matching up against us. Darryl Sutter says that he wants the Kings to be a difficult team to play against. This would make us difficult to play against.

That would leave our fourth line as King/Carcillo-Fraser/Lewis-Nolan/Lewis. Lewis is a natural center, but has been playing on the RW lately due to our over-abundance of centers. I'd like to see him move back to the middle, as he is actually really good at faceoffs, and that part of his game is currently not being utilized. He could also play on the wing if Nolan goes back into Sutter's doghouse, as he was for much of last season.

So to make a long story short, I definitely see Toffoli having 30+ goal scoring potential. I would like to see him develop a little more before we start giving him top-six minutes, but we can't waste his talent in a checking role either. Putting him with Frattin and Stoll gives us a speedy line that can score and also play well on the defensive side of the puck. In three or four years, I see him replacing Justin Williams on our top line, playing on the right side with Kopitar and Brown, with Williams moving down to a 3rd line role as he gets older (35 or so).

@341

fair enough.

my "dream" lines and roster.

Brown-Kopi-Toffoli
Pearson-MR-Carter
Frattin-Stoll-Williams
Clifford-Lewis-Nolan

Carcillo-Fraser-*King

Regerh-Doughty
Mitchell-Voynov
Muzzin-Greene

Martinez-*Schultz

Quick
Scrivens

*would take clifford and/or mitchell roster spot(not necessarily line spot).

long story short...
•i put TT with the 1st so kopi finally has a pure sniper as a winger. i could see TT pot 30 with a center like kopi.

•JW on the 3rd would be great for stoll in terms of the crazy amount of possession that JW creates. i really like frattin too and think that 3rd line could be great together

•Pearson on the 2nd is the biggest question mark(imo) but i trust the prospect and i really trust richards and carter to teach/help/protect him. i would also point out that in terms of just pure production...it's hard to believe that pearson wouldnt put up better numbers than what penner brought to the table.

•trade/move Ellerby, King, Schultz

this roster would fit under the cap according to cap geek and would leave us $996,606 in cap space.

probably not the most likely of lines but imo it makes us more dangerous and it creates more balance between the lines which i agree that we need.

@341

fair enough.

my "dream" lines and roster.

Brown-Kopi-Toffoli
Pearson-MR-Carter
Frattin-Stoll-Williams
Clifford-Lewis-Nolan

Carcillo-Fraser-*King

Regerh-Doughty
Mitchell-Voynov
Muzzin-Greene

Martinez-*Schultz

Quick
Scrivens

*would take clifford and/or mitchell roster spot(not necessarily line spot).

long story short...
•i put TT with the 1st so kopi finally has a pure sniper as a winger. i could see TT pot 30 with a center like kopi.

•JW on the 3rd would be great for stoll in terms of the crazy amount of possession that JW creates. i really like frattin too and think that 3rd line could be great together

•Pearson on the 2nd is the biggest question mark(imo) but i trust the prospect and i really trust richards and carter to teach/help/protect him. i would also point out that in terms of just pure production...it's hard to believe that pearson wouldnt put up better numbers than what penner brought to the table.

•trade/move Ellerby, King, Schultz

this roster would fit under the cap according to cap geek and would leave us $996,606 in cap space.

probably not the most likely of lines but imo it makes us more dangerous and it creates more balance between the lines which i agree that we need.
- good2b_the_king

I agree with these lines two years from now. If you throw young players into the fire too quickly, you end up with Keaton Ellerby. A first round draft pick with lots of potential, but not living up to expectations since he did not have ample AHL time to develop his game. The NHL is head and shoulders beyond NCAA and junior hockey, and if you promote players to top-six NHL roles before they are ready, they develop bad habits and under achieve. Ellerby's underachievement is Florida's fault, and it has fans like you and I saying that he doesn't fit in our lineup and should be moved. I don't want Pearson and/or Toffoli's underachivement to be LA's fault, hence my advocating their taking a little while longer to develop. These kids are young, we have plenty of time to turn them into NHL superstars. In the meantime, let them tear it up at the AHL level and give them time to develop properly.

My lines would be (using only currently signed players):

Brown-Kopitar-Williams
Carcillo-Richards-Carter
Frattin-Stoll-Toffoli
King-Lewis-Nolan

Fraser

You can interchange Carcillo and King if you want, depending on how well they are playing at any given time. Richards and Carter have experience playing with Carcillo from Philly, so putting them together might revive some of their chemistry.

Regehr-Doughty
Mitchell-Voynov
Muzzin-Greene

Martinez/Schultz

With Mitchell's uncertainty, it's likely that the Kings will carry eight defensemen on the roster, especially after the debacle that we had on defense last season when Mitchell and Greene were out with injuries. I would like to see Ellerby return to the AHL so he has a chance to unlearn some of the bad habits that he picked up from being thrust into the NHL prematurely. Next year, after Mitchell is gone, he can come back up to the NHL if he's ready.

If the rumors about his contract negotiations are true, I personally don't think Clifford will be back. Lombardi has a history of shipping out players that demand more money than they are worth, and I see Clifford heading in the direction of Cammalleri and O'Sullivan. I definitely prefer Clifford to Carcillo, but Carcillo's acquisition makes Clifford expendable. Lombardi didn't acquire him for no reason.

I'm curious...how much money did you award to Clifford to get your cap numbers? I ask because, from what I hear, the Clifford camp and the Kings camp are still worlds apart in contract price.

@341

while im well aware of what can happen to a player that is rushed too quickly to the nhl(like ellerby) just like you're aware of the kids who have thrived when givin the opportunity(like doughty or simmonds)...right? what age is too young? what age is just right? how many years at the ahl is too few or too many? ellerby didnt play for florida until he was 21. doughty was playing for the kings at 18 and simmonds at 19. look, im well aware that the ellerby's outweigh the simmonds but my point is to judge each kid on his own.

"The NHL is head and shoulders beyond NCAA and junior hockey"

not sure the intent and/or the relevant meaning behind this statement. both toffoli and pearson played and succeeded at the ahl level last year...so it doesnt seem to apply to them. do you feel this is something that im not aware of and so now youre informing me of this fact? based on our conversations i would hope that you wouldnt feel the need to point out such an obvious thing but maybe im totally missing something?

now, judging each player on his own, i just completely disagree on toffoli being involved in this "too early" discussion. period. at the age of 20 i watched him excel at the ahl level for most of the year. 28g-51pts & +20 in 58 games playing on the top line against the toughest compitition. in addition he produced at a very good level in 22 combined games(11 pts) in the nhl and he more than held his own. to me, he's ready to be given the chance to prove he belongs in the top 6. i know i dont need to tell you that you have every right to disagree with me on this but in all honesty you're the first person(fan, analyst, blogger, etc) that ive heard that thinks putting toffoli in the top 6 would be rushing him. regardless, it will be interesting to find out and good for you for having your own opinion. as stated above, i obviously disagree but i do respect your opinion.

as for pearson...including him was one of the reasons i used "dream" to describe my lines. tanner did play well in the ahl last year(18g-47pts, +17 in 64games) playing on the same line and under the same conditions as toffoli...but doing well last yr in the ahl doesn't mean you'll make the kings this year. i know that. i should also point out that as much as id love to see these lines become a reality...that doesnt mean id force them into rolls that theyre not ready for. nor would i expect sutter or lombardi to do the same. if these kids want to make the kings i have absolute trust that they will only do so if they earn it...which i admit will be a big challenge for pearson.

should be fun seeing how things turn out. i cant wait.

PS- dont be too quick to count clifford out. everybody loves to talk about osullivan when talking about clifford and contract negotiations but people fail to point out or realize that cliffords and osullivans attitudes are about as opposite as can be. sutter and lombardi love everything about this kid and for someone who likes to talk about "fits" clifford is a perfect "fit". having said that...that doesnt mean that lombardi wont trade him if he feels he can improve the team by trading him or because of the financial aspects of it. im just saying i see a lot of people writing him off and reading into things(carcillo) and i think its premature.

@341

while im well aware of what can happen to a player that is rushed too quickly to the nhl(like ellerby) just like you're aware of the kids who have thrived when givin the opportunity(like doughty or simmonds)...right? what age is too young? what age is just right? how many years at the ahl is too few or too many? ellerby didnt play for florida until he was 21. doughty was playing for the kings at 18 and simmonds at 19. look, im well aware that the ellerby's outweigh the simmonds but my point is to judge each kid on his own.

"The NHL is head and shoulders beyond NCAA and junior hockey"

not sure the intent and/or the relevant meaning behind this statement. both toffoli and pearson played and succeeded at the ahl level last year...so it doesnt seem to apply to them. do you feel this is something that im not aware of and so now youre informing me of this fact? based on our conversations i would hope that you wouldnt feel the need to point out such an obvious thing but maybe im totally missing something?

now, judging each player on his own, i just completely disagree on toffoli being involved in this "too early" discussion. period. at the age of 20 i watched him excel at the ahl level for most of the year. 28g-51pts & +20 in 58 games playing on the top line against the toughest compitition. in addition he produced at a very good level in 22 combined games(11 pts) in the nhl and he more than held his own. to me, he's ready to be given the chance to prove he belongs in the top 6. i know i dont need to tell you that you have every right to disagree with me on this but in all honesty you're the first person(fan, analyst, blogger, etc) that ive heard that thinks putting toffoli in the top 6 would be rushing him. regardless, it will be interesting to find out and good for you for having your own opinion. as stated above, i obviously disagree but i do respect your opinion.

as for pearson...including him was one of the reasons i used "dream" to describe my lines. tanner did play well in the ahl last year(18g-47pts, +17 in 64games) playing on the same line and under the same conditions as toffoli...but doing well last yr in the ahl doesn't mean you'll make the kings this year. i know that. i should also point out that as much as id love to see these lines become a reality...that doesnt mean id force them into rolls that theyre not ready for. nor would i expect sutter or lombardi to do the same. if these kids want to make the kings i have absolute trust that they will only do so if they earn it...which i admit will be a big challenge for pearson.

should be fun seeing how things turn out. i cant wait.

PS- dont be too quick to count clifford out. everybody loves to talk about osullivan when talking about clifford and contract negotiations but people fail to point out or realize that cliffords and osullivans attitudes are about as opposite as can be. sutter and lombardi love everything about this kid and for someone who likes to talk about "fits" clifford is a perfect "fit". having said that...that doesnt mean that lombardi wont trade him if he feels he can improve the team by trading him or because of the financial aspects of it. im just saying i see a lot of people writing him off and reading into things(carcillo) and i think its premature.
- good2b_the_king

I stated the obvious about the NHL vs. junior hockey because that is where Pearson and Toffoli have played the majority of their careers thus far. Lombardi has said that he would like for his players to spend two full seasons playing at the minor professional level before coming up to the NHL, so that they can get familiar with the Kings system at a lower level of competition and focus on the fundamentals (Manchester and LA play the same system, if you did not already know that). In the mid 2000s, that was a luxury that the Kings could not afford, as they were in the middle of a rebuild, and didn't have the talent available to fill an NHL roster, so they had to bring up some of their younger guys early. It worked with some players (Brown, Kopitar) and failed with others (Frolov, O'Sullivan, Parse, Moller). The failed experiments well outnumber the successes. However, now that the Kings have an established team with talent to spare, it makes little sense to rush players to the lineup before they are ready.

Yes, I am aware of players like Doughty and Simmonds, although you do realize that Simmonds didn't play in the Kings' top six, right? In his first season with the Kings (2008-09), Simmonds played on the third/fourth lines and averaged 13:15 per game. In 2009-10, he played primarily on the third line and averaged 14:28 per game. After 3½ years in the NHL, he got moved up to the 2nd line and is having great success in Philadelphia. As for Doughty -- the Doughtys, Crosbys, and Stamkoses of the league are few and far between. Very few players are the complete package when they are 18 years old, and the ones that are get drafted 1st or 2nd overall, like Doughty, Crosby, and Stamkos. I like Toffoli, but he is no Drew Doughty.

I'm not saying that we should send Toffoli back to the minors. He's obviously ready to play in the NHL. However, Carter and Richards play upwards of 18 minutes per game, and consistently play against the other team's best players. I would definitely say going from playing on the top line in the AHL for half a season, to having an infrequent spot on the Kings 3rd/4th lines (22 games), to playing top-six minutes on one of the best teams in the NHL in a position he has not played before (LW) is too much too fast. Let him play on the "third" line with Frattin and Stoll, where they will get more favorable matchups, to let him get used to the size and speed of the NHL. Once he shows that he can handle that (no I don't believe that 22 games is enough to show that he can handle that), then he can move up to the first or second line. I think Pearson could use one more year in Manchester playing on a line with Kozun and Vey.

I'm not writing off Clifford for any aspect of his on-ice performance. I completely agree that Clifford fits into the Kings' system, and that he is absolutely better to the Kings in a hockey sense than Carcillo is. That being said, there is an off-ice aspect of Clifford to consider as well. It has nothing to do with whether or not Clifford is worth X amount of dollars or not, it has to do with Clifford demanding X amount of dollars after his entry-level contract. Muzzin, Martinez, Nolan, King, & Lewis all paid their dues and accepted modest raises after their ELCs ended. In the case of all mentioned but King, they then earned their arbitration rights and filed for arbitration, going through the process defined in the CBA (King signed his RFA contract without filing for arbitration). Lombardi sat down with all of them and worked out contracts that all parties were happy with before their arbitration hearings. That is how the system works. I don't believe that Clifford has earned anything more than that, and he should be going through the process like all of the other players on the team did. Doughty is a special exception because he is Drew Doughty and the Kings can't do without him, and everyone, including Doughty and Lombardi, knows that. Clifford is not Drew Doughty, and the Kings can do without him. I believe Lombardi's acquisition of Carcillo was meant to deliver that message to the Clifford camp -- Go through the normal process like everyone else, or you will be replaced. If that message is received, and Clifford signs a reasonable contract in a reasonable amount of time, he'll stay. If training camp rolls around and they still have not worked out a contract, he'll be shipped out faster than an Amazon Prime package (just like O'Sullivan and Cammalleri).

@341

i enjoy discussing and debating the kings as well as anyone but i cant tell if you're purposely ignoring what im saying? if you are purposely trying to make me defend positions im clearly not taking(false argument)? and if the reason you're doing these things is because youre trying to "win" the discussion/argument? which is how it appears to me. look, you've shown yourself to be knowledgable and i assume youre able to comprehend what im putting out there...so im at a loss.

a few examples

you said...
"it makes little sense to rush players to the lineup before they are ready."

i already said...
"that doesnt mean id force them into roles that theyre not ready for. nor would i expect sutter or lombardi to do the same. if these kids want to make the kings i have absolute trust that they will only do so if they earn it...which i admit will be a big challenge for pearson."

you said...
"The failed experiments well outnumber the successes."

i already said...
"look, im well aware that the ellerby's outweigh the simmonds but my point is to judge each kid on his own."

a couple of other things...

you said...
"Lombardi has said that he would like for his players to spend two full seasons playing at the minor professional level before coming up to the NHL, so that they can get familiar with the Kings system at a lower level of competition and focus on the fundamentals"

i say toffoli says hi. toffoli spent 58 games at manchester before the call up. you see there is no absolute rule that applies to all players. ive stated that repeatedly. ive said to judge each player on his own which is what lombardi does despite your/his above statement.

one more...

you said...
"I stated the obvious about the NHL vs. junior hockey because that is where Pearson and Toffoli have played the majority of their careers thus far."

i say...really? really? thats what you're going with? my simple response is...of course they did! you honestly felt the need to point out that they have played the majority of their careers in juniors thus far? ok...acknowledged and too funny.

finally, i said this is MY dream roster. i said i didnt want to rush them if they werent ready and that theyd need to earn it. i also said that pearson is a bit of a longshot...and in response youve felt the need to mostly do a good and thorough job of telling me im wrong(in so many words) and then reemphasizing the challenges that i already stated would need to be overcome to make these lines come true...so thanks...i guess. your opinion and your objection to these lines are duly noted.

@341

i enjoy discussing and debating the kings as well as anyone but i cant tell if you're purposely ignoring what im saying? if you are purposely trying to make me defend positions im clearly not taking(false argument)? and if the reason you're doing these things is because youre trying to "win" the discussion/argument? which is how it appears to me. look, you've shown yourself to be knowledgable and i assume youre able to comprehend what im putting out there...so im at a loss.

a few examples

you said...
"it makes little sense to rush players to the lineup before they are ready."

i already said...
"that doesnt mean id force them into roles that theyre not ready for. nor would i expect sutter or lombardi to do the same. if these kids want to make the kings i have absolute trust that they will only do so if they earn it...which i admit will be a big challenge for pearson."

you said...
"The failed experiments well outnumber the successes."

i already said...
"look, im well aware that the ellerby's outweigh the simmonds but my point is to judge each kid on his own."

a couple of other things...

you said...
"Lombardi has said that he would like for his players to spend two full seasons playing at the minor professional level before coming up to the NHL, so that they can get familiar with the Kings system at a lower level of competition and focus on the fundamentals"

i say toffoli says hi. toffoli spent 58 games at manchester before the call up. you see there is no absolute rule that applies to all players. ive stated that repeatedly. ive said to judge each player on his own which is what lombardi does despite your/his above statement.

one more...

you said...
"I stated the obvious about the NHL vs. junior hockey because that is where Pearson and Toffoli have played the majority of their careers thus far."

i say...really? really? thats what you're going with? my simple response is...of course they did! you honestly felt the need to point out that they have played the majority of their careers in juniors thus far? ok...acknowledged and too funny.

finally, i said this is MY dream roster. i said i didnt want to rush them if they werent ready and that theyd need to earn it. i also said that pearson is a bit of a longshot...and in response youve felt the need to mostly do a good and thorough job of telling me im wrong(in so many words) and then reemphasizing the challenges that i already stated would need to be overcome to make these lines come true...so thanks...i guess. your opinion and your objection to these lines are duly noted.
- good2b_the_king

There is no way to win or lose this discussion. These are all opinions, none of which are right or wrong. I apologize if you feel like i'm ignoring and/or patronizing you. That was and is not my intention. I will try to more directly address your arguments.

You said:

"i say...really? really? thats what you're going with? my simple response is...of course they did! you honestly felt the need to point out that they have played the majority of their careers in juniors thus far?"

If this was a private conversation between the two of us, I would probably leave a lot of this information out. However, these are public posts, and since there are many readers with a varying level of hockey knowledge browsing these forums, I sometimes feel compelled to state the obvious, because what is obvious for me and you may not be obvious to them. I'm sure there are a lot of fans out there reading our discussion that follow other teams (ok, not a lot...this is hockeybuzz, who am I kidding), and that have no idea who Toffoli and Pearson are, that would appreciate some history on them.

You said:

"that doesnt mean id force them into roles that theyre not ready for. nor would i expect sutter or lombardi to do the same. if these kids want to make the kings i have absolute trust that they will only do so if they earn it...which i admit will be a big challenge for pearson."

I guess I haven't emphasized enough that I feel like the only way that these kids can prove that they are ready for the NHL is by playing games in the NHL. Coming in to training camp and playing well is great, but does not earn you top-six minutes. With the exception of Anze Kopitar, none of the players on the Kings came out of juniors/minors and played top-line minutes right away. They play on the lower lines for a while, and if they work hard and succeed in NHL games, they get promoted. We both agree that Pearson isn't ready. Great, hopefully he goes back to the AHL and develops more this season, or he comes in and impresses at training camp and plays on the 4th line for a while in place of Dwight King, who had a mediocre year last year at best. You've consistently said that you'd like to see Toffoli play on the 2nd-line LW alongside Richards and Carter. My retort would be exactly what I said in my previous post, which I will post here again:

"I'm not saying that we should send Toffoli back to the minors. He's obviously ready to play in the NHL. However, Carter and Richards play upwards of 18 minutes per game, and consistently play against the other team's best players. I would definitely say going from playing on the top line in the AHL for half a season, to having an infrequent spot on the Kings 3rd/4th lines (22 games), to playing top-six minutes on one of the best teams in the NHL in a position he has not played before (LW) is too much too fast. Let him play on the "third" line with Frattin and Stoll, where they will get more favorable matchups, to let him get used to the size and speed of the NHL. Once he shows that he can handle that (no I don't believe that 22 games is enough to show that he can handle that), then he can move up to the first or second line."

So you say you don't want to rush them, but I would say that Toffoli playing on the "second" line this season is rushing him.

You said:

"toffoli spent 58 games at manchester before the call up. you see there is no absolute rule that applies to all players."

I agree there is no absolute rule, and in the past Lombardi has brought players up to the NHL before the two-year period. 58 games is 2/3 of a season, which is a low to fair amount of time spent learning the fundamentals, but according to Lombardi (I'll search around see if I can find a direct quote), he likes for his players to have two seasons in the AHL. Sometimes this is a luxury that we can't afford, sometimes it is not. However, nowhere in any of my arguments did I advocate leaving Toffoli in the AHL for any amount of time. He is a special kid, and should be on the Kings roster in the NHL now, if only so he can learn from the elite players during practice. If Carter played on the left side, not the right, and there was a hole for Toffoli on the "second" line at RW, I would be more inclined to give him the opportunity to play there now, as it's a position he's familiar and comfortable with. However, the hole is at LW, and Toffoli has no experience at any level playing that position, let alone on one of the best lines on one of the best teams in the league. As I said, I see him eventually taking over for Justin Williams, but if you really want him to fit in on the left side of Richards and Carter, have the "third" line be Toffoli-Stoll-Frattin, and let him get some experience playing on the left side. Then next season (or late this season if he can pick it up quickly), move him up to the "second" line. But like I said before, I think slotting him on the "second" line LW at this juncture is too much too quickly.

Just to reiterate, I am not telling you that you are wrong. I am telling you that I disagree with you, and am trying to provide justification about why I disagree with you. Regardless of what is "right" or "wrong," whatever Dean Lombardi ad Darryl Sutter decide to do will be "right," even if it doesn't work out for the best.

Plus, I'm also trying to help Jason gain some notoriety on hockeybuzz by inflating the number of comments on his thread.

Plus, I'm also trying to help Jason gain some notoriety on hockeybuzz by inflating the number of comments on his thread.
- tkecanuck341

You're welcome.

Plus, I'm also trying to help Jason gain some notoriety on hockeybuzz by inflating the number of comments on his thread.
- tkecanuck341

Haha brilliant.