Imo, A lot of early season struggles with Bryz had to do with communication issues with his defensemen and possibly just trouble adjusting to the flyers system as a whole. The media took his early struggles and ran with it. Compounded by 24/7 and a big new contract, I don't think he felt settled until about February. I think we will se a much more consistent Bryzgalov next year.
- funmaster18

I agree 100%. Bryz has proven to be a good goalie. His struggles this year were uncharacteristic. Unfortunately, most casual fans and the media members with an agenda either don't know or choose to ignore what he did in Anaheim and Phoenix.

It's a shame they were ousted, but a lot of people had the team missing the playoffs all together. Can't lose perspective just because they didn't win the Stanley Cup.
- funmaster18

Meh. It's easier to focus on what they didn't accomplish for the 37th spring in a row (really only 36 because no one won a Cup in 2005).

EDIT:

Exactly. Which is why I wouldn't want to be in the Kings position with Richards and Carter's contracts if they lost.
- NickTheKid87

Either way, unless Carter has a monster final (possible, hardly probable), I see LA looking to move him at the end of the year.

In the short run they are worthwhile but as players get older and less effective they become contracts of burden (i.e. Roberto Luongo). Plus if the Kings don't win this year or within the next few years then they would want to shake up the team.
- NickTheKid87

If Luongo was playing at the top of his game, his contract wouldn't be a burden. As long as the Kings continue to be a contending team, I don't see why they would want to shake up the team. Carter and Richards are still young and they didn't take on those contracts for just a couple of years window.

It's a shame they were ousted, but a lot of people had the team missing the playoffs all together. Can't lose perspective just because they didn't win the Stanley Cup.
- funmaster18

people also seem to make too small a deal out of what it means to a team to lose a player like chris pronger. how many teams could sustain that kind of loss and still go on a deep cup run?

But to the same team twice? Not nearly as common. How many teams have won the Cup multiple times recently? The Devils, Aves, Red Wings and Pens are the only teams to win the Cup multiple times in the last 20 years.
- NickTheKid87

Why would it have to happen to the same team twice. The Kings are improved. They added two good players. They will tweak just like any other team will. And no reason why they can't be a contender for a number of years down the road with the core they now have.

If Luongo was playing at the top of his game, his contract wouldn't be a burden. As long as the Kings continue to be a contending team, I don't see why they would want to shake up the team. Carter and Richards are still young and they didn't take on those contracts for just a couple of years window.
- MJL

But he's not.

The Flyers were a contending team and traded both guys. If the Kings don't win a Cup within the next, say, 5 years, than why wouldn't you want to make changes to the team?

Sports are an interesting event. One minute a player is amazing and the next they are garbage. Kessel and Kesler are good examples. Shoot Parise might tank next year for all we know. If Carter comes up big in the next series he will be held on a podium as a man among boys. I totally hear what you are saying, I also think the next series will be huge in determining if he is a PO magician or dude. Things just change that fast in sports.
- coffee junkie

No doubt about that.

people also seem to make too small a deal out of what it means to a team to lose a player like chris pronger. how many teams could sustain that kind of loss and still go on a deep cup run?
- FlyerMike18

This post makes a lot of sense. Thank you.

But he's not.

The Flyers were a contending team and traded both guys. If the Kings don't win a Cup within the next, say, 5 years, than why wouldn't you want to make changes to the team?
- NickTheKid87

They probably would. But 5 years is a long time. And you replying that Luongo isn't playing at the top of his game, that's why his contract is a burden. What makes you think that Richards and Carter won't be playing at the top of their games in LA down the road?

If Luongo was playing at the top of his game, his contract wouldn't be a burden. As long as the Kings continue to be a contending team, I don't see why they would want to shake up the team. Carter and Richards are still young and they didn't take on those contracts for just a couple of years window.
- MJL

The Canucks are a contending team, so should they hang onto Luongo?

No doubt about that.
- MJL

Leighton went from loved to hated in less than two weeks' time. Those who conveniently forget his arrival in the Boston series and play through the Montreal series look only at the Final. And usually, just 1 play in Game 6.

people also seem to make too small a deal out of what it means to a team to lose a player like chris pronger. how many teams could sustain that kind of loss and still go on a deep cup run?
- FlyerMike18

Not many. That's nother reason why I'm not upset about the Flyers getting knocked out and the Kings are in the Finals. As was said earlier. You need some breaks along the way. But you also need to take advantage of them.

people also seem to make too small a deal out of what it means to a team to lose a player like chris pronger. how many teams could sustain that kind of loss and still go on a deep cup run?
- FlyerMike18

and with how many rookies in the regular lineup?

i can't be anything but proud of how far they got

The Canucks are a contending team, so should they hang onto Luongo?
- funmaster18

For the sake of the rest of the NW Division, yes.

The Canucks are a contending team, so should they hang onto Luongo?
- funmaster18

Well that's not what I said. If Luongo was playing at the top of his game and was playing like one of the best Goalies in the game. Would they want to get rid of him?

Either way, unless Carter has a monster final (possible, hardly probable), I see LA looking to move him at the end of the year.
- 77rams

I don't see that happening. But you never know.

They probably would. But 5 years is a long time. And you replying that Luongo isn't playing at the top of his game, that's why his contract is a burden. What makes you think that Richards and Carter won't be playing at the top of their games in LA down the road?
- MJL

Those guys have never played up to those contracts and not many players could especially Carter. At least Richards is a elite penalty killer. If he can score 65+ points consistently than he's well worth it. Carter on the other hand is streaky. He scores a lot of goals but he takes a lot of shots plus disappears in the playoffs. 10 years is a long time to be stuck with a player like that.

Well that's not what I said. If Luongo was playing at the top of his game and was playing like one of the best Goalies in the game. Would they want to get rid of him?
- MJL

You suggested the kings keep carter as long as they are a contending team. Just looking for clarification because carter. I think carter an luong are very similar. They are streaky and come up small in the playoffs. I'm just wondering if carter should remain on the kings because they are a contending team, then shouldnt Luongo, by that logic?

The Canucks are a contending team, so should they hang onto Luongo?
- funmaster18

I thought they were...
and the Flyers are a contending team too and we want to get rid of Danny Boy...

one min you are love the next you are hated...

on with the show....

and with how many rookies in the regular lineup?

i can't be anything but proud of how far they got
- Don'tForgetTocchet

Two possible answers here:

1) Exactly.

or

2) *swallows a profusely sweating toad* So sorry you're happy with losing.

I opt for #1.

For the sake of the rest of the NW Division, yes.
- Flyskippy

Those guys have never played up to those contracts and not many players could especially Carter. At least Richards is a elite penalty killer. If he can score 65+ points consistently than he's well worth it. Carter on the other hand is streaky. He scores a lot of goals but he takes a lot of shots plus disappears in the playoffs. 10 years is a long time to be stuck with a player like that.
- NickTheKid87

I disagree completely with that. Both players have been very, very good players their entire careers. This term streaky needs to be looked at also. Other then the most consistent goal scorers and superstars such as Stamkos, Malkin, Crosby. All goal scorers are streaky.

Two possible answers here:

1) Exactly.

or

2) *swallows a profusely sweating toad* So sorry you're happy with losing.

I opt for #1.
- Flyskippy

*Brilliant

Those guys have never played up to those contracts and not many players could especially Carter. At least Richards is a elite penalty killer. If he can score 65+ points consistently than he's well worth it. Carter on the other hand is streaky. He scores a lot of goals but he takes a lot of shots plus disappears in the playoffs. 10 years is a long time to be stuck with a player like that.
- NickTheKid87

Carter takes a lot less shots than Ovi. He also is trying to pick corners. Guys that shoot that way will miss a lot - but no one complains when they go in. Heck, Gagne had a nickname of "Gagnehighandwide," in many circles.