I'm going to change up pace for now and get away from the regular game day blogs and give you guys a little more content to chew on and talk about.
So let's talk about one of the most annoying habits it seems the Kings deal with when it comes to personnel. Why do players we trade away excel? I'm not talking about just kind-of sort-of well, like regretting the departure well.
We've dealt with this for years it seems. Players depart for a multitude of reasons. Maybe it's a money issue ala Scuderi or Penner. Maybe it's a simple issue of not seeing a need or place for them on the team ala Richardson, Bernier, Boyle, Purcell, and Moulson. Finally, maybe it's just a good old fashioned hockey trade ala Jack Johnson and Brayden Schenn/Wayne Simmonds.
Whatever the case may be doesn't it seem like the players who we trade away or walk go on to do ridiculously well? Tonight against the visiting Vancouver Canucks we get to take a look at former King Brad Richardson who is off to a career start. He has nine points in 18 games and is on pace for a career high in almost every category. Well maybe he is just playing with good linemates right? Rookie Darren Archibald, and Zach Kassian. Good for Brad.
What about Dustin Penner? Pancakes. Lazy, healthy scratch, only plays in the playoffs Dustin Penner. 12 points in 11 games, playing on Anaheim's top line with Perry and Getzlaf, and leading the league with a plus-18.
Wait. What? Is this the same Penner we had?
Jonathan Bernier, .936 Save-percentage, 2.17 GAA
I could go on and on. Matt Moulson with consecutive 30 goal seasons after playing minimally here. Teddy Purcell with consecutive 50+ point seasons in Tampa after being an in-oft starter for the Kings. Wayne Simmonds with back to back seasons with a 50-60 point pace.
It's easy. Why? Because there are a lot of them.
On some level you have to be proud that the Kings are that good at development. Simmonds, Purcell, Moulson, Bernier...these are all product of a fantastic youth system and development program the Kings have. While the prospect cupboard is a little bare right now, the Kings in a whole have been one of the best teams in the league in homegrown talent. However, you can't keep everyone.
So why do these players succeed when we get rid of them? Are we short sighted? Do we cut ties too quickly? Do the Kings not use players properly? I'd say, and this is just my opinion, that it's a no brainer that the system the Kings utilize is not for everyone. The crash and bang, dump and chase style that we have employed since the early to mid 2000's with big bodies and board battles is definitely not a system in which your Teddy Purcells and Matt Moulsons will succeed. So when you look at the stat sheets of said players and wince...know that it's likely they wouldn't have even come close to those numbers with the Kings.
It's incredibly easy to look at the numbers in a vacuum. Example A; Wayne Simmonds. He doubled his goal production the season after he left the Kings scoring a very respectable 28 goals. Here's the kicker, he played on the powerplay, where he had 11 of those goals. A powerplay which had Hartnell and Giroux. His regular linemates during that season were Matt Read and Danny Briere. Not quite the upright mammal theory* I go with when analyzing the linemates of Alex Ovechkin and Sidney Crosby, but still, he was presented with a much better environment to succeed than third line minutes alongside Michal Handzus and Alexei Ponikarovsky.
*Any upright mammal will be able to get at least 30 points a season based on proximity to a world class player
Example B) We need left wingers. Matt Moulson is a 30 goal scoring left winger we let go. Ergo, we shouldn't have let go of Matt Moulson. Simple logic right? Wrong. Wether you trust in Dean Lombardi or not, Moulson was a better fit in New York with a faster and more open system. Alongside John Tavares and in a more open system, Moulson was a 30 goal scorer. Here? Maybe a 15-20 guy. likewise, Teddy Purcell was better off in Tampa with a faster, more creative, and less physically intensive system. It's just the nature of the beast. Some players work better in other systems. Teams like the St. Louis Blues and the L.A. Kings have to rely very heavily on homegrown talent due to how difficult their system is for any one player to step into who hasn't played in a system like this before. Certain players fit the mold, ala Williams and Stoll, that we acquired via trade...but outside of the Richards trade and the pieces involved there...are there any former King players who actually fit the mold of Big, gritty, hard-hitting, hard-working King style players? Moulson? Purcell? Penner? Boyle? Cammalleri? When trying to create a culture and create a style you stick to the blueprint. Some teams struggle with that.
Do the Edmonton Oilers have a blueprint or an identity? Do the Calgary Flames have an identity? How about the Sabres right now? It starts with your roster and roster selections. Love it or hate it, some very talented players just don't fit the mold we have here. While there will always be a little part of me that says "what if" when it comes to those players, our recent success has got me to buy into the idea of amalgamation throughout the lineup. Sometimes, that means you lose good players.
Let's be fair also, there are a number of players who have gone other plays with little to no success. Colton Teubert, Scott Parse, Thomas Hickey...to an extent, Jeff Tambellini, Denis Grebeshkov etc.
So when Brad Richardson scores a hat trick tonight, inevitably, and the Moulson Index spikes to new levels (stick tap to Jesse Cohen at All The Kings Men for that beauty), nod your head and know it just wasn't meant to be Richie, Moulson, Pancakes, Purcell, Cammy, Bernier, Simmer, Schenn, JJ, Boyle, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.....etc.
Do you agree with our system and some of the cuts we've had to make or do you sit alone late a night by the fire with a bottle of whiskey and reminisce about the days of Matt Moulson at left wing?