Jason Lewis: The Kings Do Not Need a Defenseman at the Deadline

Jason Lewis: The Kings Do Not Need a Defenseman at the Deadline
- Jason_Lewis

Just trade for a Blue Jacket, That has worked well

Jason Lewis: The Kings Do Not Need a Defenseman at the Deadline
- Jason_Lewis

duplicate post

Parenteau and Hunwick for a 2nd. Injury insurance on the back end and a cheap 3rd line wing option. I'm sure the Leafs could take back a bad cotract as well if the Kings threw in a mid-tier prospect. They too are looking to beef up a roster for a playoff run, albeit in the AHL.

if they deal pearson or another young asset, it has to be for a top 6 player with a reasonable cap hit and contract that extends beyond this year...which doesn't sound like someone another team would deal to LA.

Parenteau and Hunwick for a 2nd. Injury insurance on the back end and a cheap 3rd line wing option. I'm sure the Leafs could take back a bad cotract as well if the Kings threw in a mid-tier prospect. They too are looking to beef up a roster for a playoff run, albeit in the AHL.
- poopstash

Considering Polak and Spaling went for two 2nds I highly doubt they pull Parenteau Hunwick for one.

Mostly agree with the assessment. I personally would be in support of acquiring a solid depth defenseman as mostly an insurance policy. Although Erhoff could in theory fill that role, I think it's fairly apparent how the organization (especially Sutter) views his role with the team. Shultz is probably a better fit system and style wise, but I'm not particularly fond of bringing guys up from the AHL who haven't played in the NHL the entire season. And thrusting them into action, of all times, into the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

pearson kempe and a 2nd for ladd and trouba. heck throw in forbort
too

I'd like to get Hudler on the team. I can only imagine the speed and creativity he'd have on the Carter line.

You guys need Mark Striet and the Flyers need to dump his salary for next year. It works out well for both

Whether or not they need one does not mean it's bad to have another one. Injuries happen.

Whether or not they need one does not mean it's bad to have another one. Injuries happen.
- jmatchett383

I think that was Jason's point somewhere in there. Dean doesn't need to go out and overpay for one but at a low cost it would be a welcomed addition.

pearson kempe and a 2nd for ladd and trouba. heck throw in forbort
too
- masterhans

Pearson is Jeff Carter lite, I really hope we stick with him.

I think I would much prefer if we were quiet at the deadline. Stick with the team we have now, if it doesn't work this season get ready for a youth movement next season. I really want to see Kempe, Zykov, Mersh, Dowd, and Forbort etc

Pearson is Jeff Carter lite, I really hope we stick with him.

I think I would much prefer if we were quiet at the deadline. Stick with the team we have now, if it doesn't work this season get ready for a youth movement next season. I really want to see Kempe, Zykov, Mersh, Dowd, and Forbort etc - Deadmau55

I'm with you. Youngsters need to step up and play real minutes with their lower cap hits. We're a little thin on cap space going forward with some of the dead weight.

Thats the difference between LA and Chicago. Hawks have Keith and Seabrook and are looking to add a defender, LA has Doughty and Martinez and should not be looking to add? The rest of the defense you mentioned is meh and could easily be upgraded. Luckily for King fans, Lombardi knows that improving the team is a good idea, at the right price of course.

Quick in net tonight?

Thats the difference between LA and Chicago. Hawks have Keith and Seabrook and are looking to add a defender, LA has Doughty and Martinez and should not be looking to add? The rest of the defense you mentioned is meh and could easily be upgraded. Luckily for King fans, Lombardi knows that improving the team is a good idea, at the right price of course.
- sniper11

And what's the difference between LA/CHI and ANA? game 7 Ws...
You forgot Muzzin. Although CHI has the two you mentioned and Hjamarlsson, it gets VERY very flimsy after that as witnessed by the minutes those 3 played in the POs last season. Rozsival, van Riem, and Svedberg leave an awful lot to be desired when planning on another deep run.
I'm pretty content (as is Jason) with DD, AMart, Muzzin, and Schenn, with McNabb starting off paired with Drew and a rotating 6 as long as its not Ehrhoff.

Thats the difference between LA and Chicago. Hawks have Keith and Seabrook and are looking to add a defender, LA has Doughty and Martinez and should not be looking to add? The rest of the defense you mentioned is meh and could easily be upgraded. Luckily for King fans, Lombardi knows that improving the team is a good idea, at the right price of course.
- sniper11

Chicago's top 3 guys (Keith, Seabrook, Hjalmarsson) are awesome but the remaining D is a big drop off in terms of ability and experience. Last year, those 3 and Oduya were ridden big minutes and still won the Cup. If you recall starting with the WCF and through that series, the talking heads all expected that Top 4 to tire. What's changed with the Hawks this year going into the playoffs? No Oduya. The Trevor Daley experiment didn't go too hot. So the Hawks are faced with the same issue this year as last but they are down Oduya. That's a big deal.

The Kings' top 3 guys (Doughty, Muzzin, and arguably Martinez) are a notch below Chicago's top 3 (no doubt), BUT the Kings have more quality depth in McNabb, Scheen, and McBain versus the Hawks. We're talking bottom 3, here, so we're comparing replacement level guys in some instances.

Thats the difference between LA and Chicago. Hawks have Keith and Seabrook and are looking to add a defender, LA has Doughty and Martinez and should not be looking to add? The rest of the defense you mentioned is meh and could easily be upgraded. Luckily for King fans, Lombardi knows that improving the team is a good idea, at the right price of course.
- sniper11

Doughty and Muzzin.

Martinez has been part of the meh group this year. Nevertheless that group can very much hold their own. Compared to the Hawks group I would actually take the Kings.

I mean, Svedberg, TVR, Rozsival, or McNabb, Schenn, McBain? It's pretty much a toss up, but I think McNabb/Schenn nudge it over the Kings way.

Doughty and Muzzin.

Martinez has been part of the meh group this year. Nevertheless that group can very much hold their own. Compared to the Hawks group I would actually take the Kings.

I mean, Svedberg, TVR, Rozsival, or McNabb, Schenn, McBain? It's pretty much a toss up, but I think McNabb/Schenn nudge it over the Kings way.
- Jason_Lewis

Kings bottom 3 > Chicago bottom 3

Jason Lewis: The Kings Do Not Need a Defenseman at the Deadline
- Jason_Lewis

Kings have over 7 million of cap space for the playoffs as it includes Greens salary also. Wonder what they'll do if anything?

The reason for LA's prowess in defensive measurements (GAA, Corsi, chances, etc.) is the system that they play. Their defensive personnel is not anything special, to be honest. After Doughty, there's a big drop-off to a bunch of interchangeable support players. The reason that they get away with it (besides Doughty being a workhorse) is the system. It makes nearly everyone look a lot better at defense than they really are or would look in most other systems. So, you end up with a quandary. Do they "need" an upgrade? If you look at it on paper, the answer is probably "yes." If you look at results, though, the answer may be "no."

While I would really like them to upgrade their personnel, the cost will likely be very high for what may end up a negligible effect on the results. Pearson isn't exactly anything special, but it's harder to find forwards like him who can produce in Sutter's system than defensemen who fit it, so I'm not sure that I want to see him traded for a rental defenseman.

In an even smaller sample size, Kevin Gravel has looked capable (Despite Sutter harshly calling him out on a goal that broke down on two more...senior players. Erhrm Mr. 77 and Mr. 3)
- Jason Lewis

He deserved to be called out, as I did that night. I do sort of agree that it was harsh for Sutter to do it, though, only because it was just as stupid as some of the mistakes that I've seen from other defensemen (particularly Muzzin and Martinez). Apparently, if you contribute on offense, your poor defense is forgivable, but if you're a defense-first rookie who's expendable, you're benched for a single mistake. Kids like Gravel always receive the bad end of the double standard.

The reason for LA's prowess in defensive measurements (GAA, Corsi, chances, etc.) is the system that they play. Their defensive personnel is not anything special, to be honest. After Doughty, there's a big drop-off to a bunch of interchangeable support players. The reason that they get away with it (besides Doughty being a workhorse) is the system. It makes nearly everyone look a lot better at defense than they really are or would look in most other systems. So, you end up with a quandary. Do they "need" an upgrade? If you look at it on paper, the answer is probably "yes." If you look at results, though, the answer may be "no.".
- Osprey

So you've seen Muzzin, Amart, and McNabb in different systems sufficient enough that you can make a comparison? If the system makes the player, how come Christian Ehrhoff was waived because of his poor play? I have trouble figuring out why someone like yourself who is such an evidence-based critic would forward an argument like this one.

Kings bottom 3 > Chicago bottom 3
- KINGS67

I'd rather have better top 3 if i had to pick

I really want to see Kempe, Zykov, Mersh, Dowd, and Forbort etc
- Deadmau55

sutter wouldn't let lombardi have that many young players on the big club, or the fourth line would have 8 dudes on it.

but i agree, i wouldn't mind seeing more young players get a real shot too.