You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go to Page...
Thank you for crosschecking our sponsors!
About This Page: This is a discussion on News within the LetsGoKings.com forums, at Los Angeles Kings Hockey Fan Forum. Carla, you are not the only one who is optmistic about our "d" and this coming year. I think we are putting a team on the ice that is going
Carla, you are not the only one who is optmistic about our "d" and this coming year. I think we are putting a team on the ice that is going to compete and compete hard. Night in and night out. Which should translate into atleast afew more wins than last season. Either way, I am still optimistic about the future of the kings this season.
Make no mistake, his play last year – all under the control of Visnovsky personally – had everything to do with why Lubomir is an Oiler.
Somehow I don't think it was Visnovsky's idea to be flip-flopped from the right to left side of the ice from shift to shift all year. Perhaps you hadn't noticed that happening. I did because I would say something about him being back on the side he likes and plays best on and then I'd look and he was on ther other side later. I would also contend that the play of Rob Blake had an effect on the play of Visnovsky. When Blake did not keep his man from scoring it went in Visnovsky's negative column as well if he was on the ice. He could not play both defensive positions at the same time but Blake left him hanging again and again, not a choice Visnovsky would have chosen I'm sure. I'm not saying that his play was at the same level as it had been in previous years, but then again the team was the worst it has been since he joined it. Another thing that was noticable was that Visnovsky was targeted all season since no one else on the team stood up for him to dissaude other teams from doing so. Even Ivanans didn't try to "hug" the offenders. So I have to disagree that all of the aspects leading to his drop in play were under his control.
Regarding the surprise about the trade I would assume it was not as much the actual trade but rather that it was not to a team he had been told were possibilities. I'd be furious if I was traded to the icebox in Bumfu!k Canada after listing several other teams as destinations.
As far as impugning him, although it may not have been to the level of Tampa Bay and Boyle, Lombardi did call Visnovsky a decent second tier player, not a top tier player. Well, please take a look at the points stats for all defensemen in the league. Visnovsky is at number 17, two places below Chris Pronger at 15 with 2 points more. So I guess Pronger must be a second tier player as well. His team wasn't as poor as the one Visnovsky was on, yet he only had two more points. So Visnovsky isn't in the top sixty defensemen? (Figuring that there are two top defensemen on thirty teams.) That may be true if he is on certain teams but not most of them. So, to me, that was a negative comment on the value of the player.
In my opinion it's a sad situation when a player who has been told that he is a cornerstone of rebuilding the team, and then because his play wasn't as high as his own personal record for one season, he is traded instead. Funny how Lombardi has signed numerous other players who had not played up to previous levels, and/or had serious injuries, to sizable contracts and yet on a team that sucked overall there was no benefit of the doubt given to Visnovsky that his play would rebound.
.
__________________ "Of course , that's just my opinion, I could be wrong." -Dennis Miller
Some posters around here just like to make up things to suit their personal opinions and then others use them as facts in the future.
Carla, you are not the only one who is optmistic about our "d" and this coming year. I think we are putting a team on the ice that is going to compete and compete hard. Night in and night out. Which should translate into atleast afew more wins than last season.
Cool! I have no earthly idea what this team will do. I just find it hard to believe that a team of young, hungry and for the first time in a long time talented kids cannot make some noise. Contenders? Hardly. Will they compete and show up? Call me crazy, but like you, I believe it. (Besides, if I am wrong, there is plenty of time to get cranky later.)
Somehow I don't think it was Visnovsky's idea to be flip-flopped from the right to left side of the ice from shift to shift all year. Perhaps you hadn't noticed that happening.
I did notice it. It seems off to give Visnovsky a complete pass for a thoroughly less than adequate year solely because he was on the opposite side. Last year, Lubo didn't have a Lubo-type quality year and his bad luck, it went down right before his no trade clause went into effect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 24diving
I would also contend that the play of Rob Blake had an effect on the play of Visnovsky. When Blake did not keep his man from scoring it went in Visnovsky's negative column as well if he was on the ice.
The entire team was horrendous defensively last year. As to Blake, by mid-season he really started to step up his play. Like it or not, fair or not, when a player is about to go into an expensive contract extension right before the team loses its ability to control their own destiny, a trade is a possibility. Also, when you are set to become one of the highest paid players on the team, you have to play like it. Period. If there are problems with your defensive partner, if there are some adjustments required to fit where your coach needs you, then you figure it out.I am sorry but he absolutely had something to do with why he isn't a King. I cannot give him as much of a pass as I am sensing you are providing him. I get it, just cannot match it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 24diving
Another thing that was noticable was that Visnovsky was targeted all season since no one else on the team stood up for him to dissaude other teams from doing so. Even Ivanans didn't try to "hug" the offenders. So I have to disagree that all of the aspects leading to his drop in play were under his control.
This too seems too easy. Any elite or top paid player better find a way to work it out or expect to have their services transferred anywhere else, even Siberia. You think any other top or second tier player would get a pass due to double or triple coverage? Not a chance. O'Sullivan IMO took far more abuse than Kopitar at times. All he did is put his head down, on one occasion a face mask, and try harder. This is the NHL not the Play Nice League.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 24diving
As far as impugning him, although it may not have been to the level of Tampa Bay and Boyle, Lombardi did call Visnovsky a decent second tier player, not a top tier player. Well, please take a look at the points stats for all defensemen in the league. Visnovsky is at number 17, two places below Chris Pronger at 15 with 2 points more.
Here is where some of your bias is showing to me. No one would mistake Visnovsky for Pronger, EVER. There is more to being a top tier defenseman than points. Pronger has a Norris, a Cup and strength defensively to go with his offensive flair. And for the record, I cannot stand Pronger. He plays dirty and I don't respect him, call it a gut thing. Visnovsky is NO Pronger even when Pronger is playing on the clean side of his game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 24diving
In my opinion it's a sad situation when a player who has been told that he is a cornerstone of rebuilding the team, and then because his play wasn't as high as his own personal record for one season, he is traded instead.
I am sorry but what happened to Visnovsky is what I would call a reality check. Twenty-fours after his trade, if Lubo was still a King, and he did NOT turn his play around, he could have tied the team's hands for a long time and a lot of $$. If any GM had any doubt that a player(s) might exercise their no trade clause, it would have to be the group en masse in Toronto.
If I am the GM, and I have control and I have doubts, I see what is out there and do what is best for my organization. That is Lombardi's job. Had Visnovsky did his better, I contend he still would be a King. I stand by that. (I get we disagree but your take seems to include a bias and sentiment that often gets ignored in business decisions - for better or worse.)
Last edited by Carla Muller; July 6th, 2008 at 06:45 PM.
In regards to Sully a few things come to mind. Perhaps DL's strategy is to leave Sully exposed to offer sheets to gauge his worth, if he gets an offer which is within reason DL matches it, if Sully does not get an offer then DL uses that in his negotiations to settle on a reasonable amount. It is a lot easier to offer a lower amount when no one else is offering anything. From what I remember DL saying back when he was trying to negotiate with Cammy last year DL does not like to give out big contracts to unproven players. Sully is not a proven player yet, he only has 1 full NHL season under his belt, yes it was a good season for Sully but DL likes to see a few of those before awarding 4-6 million.
From what I remember DL saying back when he was trying to negotiate with Cammy last year DL does not like to give out big contracts to unproven players. Sully is not a proven player yet, he only has 1 full NHL season under his belt, yes it was a good season for Sully but DL likes to see a few of those before awarding 4-6 million.
There is a lot of wisdom in your words. The NHL seems to be undergoing desperate times by some GMs. If another team's desperation forces DL's hand rather than massively overpay for, as you so aptly put, an unproven player then so be it. Either way, since the Kings own his rights, the team will either get the player or considerable consideration. I vote for the latter. I am really pulling for him BUT ONLY if he is wearing a Kings' uniform.
Obviously someone is lying. Perhaps you people should look into the "common denominator instead of believing everything that comes out of the pie hole of a blogger. No offense.
I quoted Rich Hammond. Are you seriously suggesting Hammond is lying? No offense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpanishFly
Did this chick just compare what Lombardi is doing in Los Angeles to Billy Crystal's character in "When Harry Met Sally" and 2004 Democratic Presidential Nominee John Kerry? ... Egad!
Respect is a funny thing. Once it is earned, it is returned. For whatever reason, I have not earned yours. My loss.
I did notice it. It seems off to give Visnovsky a complete pass for a thoroughly less than adequate year solely because he was on the opposite side. Last year, Lubo didn't have a Lubo-type quality year and his bad luck, it went down right before his no trade clause went into effect.
Considering that him playing on his off side effectively nullifies his two most important offensive weapons (quick slap shot and wrister), that point total is not bad. The only way he gets a look is if there is a rotation which allows him to get to the middle, although that usually doesn't allow the one-timer. Of course, I suppose having Robber Blake's wildly misfiring cannon was the answer.
And for those who use the "well, he did better last season doing the same thing" rationale - He did even better the year before under Andy Murray, playing on the other side exclusively.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlaMuller
The entire team was horrendous defensively last year. As to Blake, by mid-season he really started to step up his play. Like it or not, fair or not, when a player is about to go into an expensive contract extension right before the team loses its ability to control their own destiny, a trade is a possibility. Also, when you are set to become one of the highest paid players on the team, you have to play like it. Period. If there are problems with your defensive partner, if there are some adjustments required to fit where your coach needs you, then you figure it out.I am sorry but he absolutely had something to do with why he isn't a King. I cannot give him as much of a pass as I am sensing you are providing him. I get it, just cannot match it.
If you're not placing a player in a position to succeed, you're not doing your job as a coach. The idiot Crawford should have had someone else paired with Blake anyway.
Someone who would cover Blake's constantly out of position a**, like Modry perhaps.
Being paired with Blake is akin to swimming in a pool and having someone toss in an anchor for you to catch...
His Norris Trophy should have been cut in 2, and the other half given to Mattias Norstrom, who bailed him out incessantly that year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlaMuller
This too seems too easy. Any elite or top paid player better find a way to work it out or expect to have their services transferred anywhere else, even Siberia. You think any other top or second tier player would get a pass due to double or triple coverage? Not a chance. O'Sullivan IMO took far more abuse than Kopitar at times. All he did is put his head down, on one occasion a face mask, and try harder. This is the NHL not the Play Nice League.
What the hell does Kopitar have to do with this argument? Last I heard, the forwards weren't the ones who took the brunt of the voracious forechecking that is now the norm since the rule changes. Almost every opponent went out of their way to target Visnovsky, frequently long after the puck had been delivered elsewhere, when a penalty would have been in order.
He ain't the first, or last, defenseman that has struggled with that. Again, I feel a major share of the blame for that falls on Crawford's shoulders. The King forwards were possibly the very worst in the entire league at supporting the defensemen: rarely coming back to present a target for tmely outlet passes which would save some wear and tear on the blueliners.
With teams like Detroit, one hardly ever sees the defensemen plowed - because they play as a 5 - man group (something Crawford never instilled).
And, if the player is drawing double or triple coverage, why in hell isn't the puck getting to the open guys? It's easy to point the finger at someone in golf or tennis, since they succeed or fail on their own merits. The situation is far different in a team sport. I hope the next coach can implement a system that stresses reponsibility in all 3 zones; and that is enough of a leader so it's unnecessary to browbeat they players 24/7.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlaMuller
Here is where some of your bias is showing to me. No one would mistake Visnovsky for Pronger, EVER. There is more to being a top tier defenseman than points. Pronger has a Norris, a Cup and strength defensively to go with his offensive flair. And for the record, I cannot stand Pronger. He plays dirty and I don't respect him, call it a gut thing. Visnovsky is NO Pronger even when Pronger is playing on the clean side of his game.
He's not supposed to be Pronger. To his credit, I don't see him commit the cavalcade of cheap shots (both stick related and elbowing someone's head into the glass varieties). Gee, maybe Lumbago can entice Marchment out of retirement for a little "toughness".
How many Cups did the exalted Pronger win in St. Louis (with a Hall of Fame partner on the blueline)? Neidermayer was much more of a force than "Demented Opie" was for the Quacks.
He's also played through myriad injuries with minimal downtime. My idea of toughness is that associated with Norstrom or Visnovsky: they both let their play (clean play) do their talking for them.
He also had been played in all situations, attesting to the faith of the coaching staffs in his all-around play.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlaMuller
I am sorry but what happened to Visnovsky is what I would call a reality check. Twenty-fours after his trade, if Lubo was still a King, and he did NOT turn his play around, he could have tied the team's hands for a long time and a lot of $$. If any GM had any doubt that a player(s) might exercise their no trade clause, it would have to be the group en masse in Toronto.
Then why did he sign him to such a lucrative contract? Lubo's prior contract was, I believe, for $2M. He probably could have signed him for significantly less than the contract that resulted, because Visnovsky liked it here and wanted to be part of the rebuild (as Lombardi told him, to his face, he would).
Either Lombardi is being disingenuous, or he's just the latest AEG puppet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlaMuller
If I am the GM, and I have control and I have doubts, I see what is out there and do what is best for my organization. That is Lombardi's job. Had Visnovsky did his better, I contend he still would be a King. I stand by that. (I get we disagree but your take seems to include a bias and sentiment that often gets ignored in business decisions - for better or worse.)
I disagree. I think if Visnovsky had a banner year last time out, Lumbago still would have dealt him somewhere (he'd still be looking to dump the salary); the asking price would've just been higher.
I hope Lubo has a better relationship with the coaching staff in Edmonton, and has a career year.
But, jeepers, we've got Stoll and Greene. Big f'n deal.
Tavares, here we come!
__________________ You know you're a drunkard when... You get into a fistfight with a wino over how long a bottle of Thunderbird should be allowed to "breathe".
Last edited by ChilledAgua; July 7th, 2008 at 01:10 AM.
i think Lubo's early exit has been completely his own fault. he was my favorite d-man in the league for the most part over his career up until the last couple years, i'm thinkin crawford had something to do with it, but still... when he's on the ice, he's the one who calls the shots he's supposed to be a professional. last year was huge step back for lubo.
as for o'sully and friends still not bein on contract this far after July 1st, may have something to do with the fact that Lombardi still hasnt decided on a COACH! i mean come on already, there are plenty of coaches available yet nothing has been said as to who is in the running at least.
will we see arbitration? when is the deadlilne for that?
As to the offer sheet route, well……… if some team is so desperate to get O’Sullivan to offer him a Vanek type offer sheet where he will make anywhere from $7 to 10 million dollars next year, then you sort of half to let him go. There, I said it. As much as I want O’Sullivan to be the team’s next captain, a vacancy thankfully available due to the greed of Blake, if another team lays the gauntlet of an obscene proposal, then Lombardi has to check his emotions at the door and make a business decision to benefit the Kings. I would characterize that type of player transaction to be an excellent example of discerning the difference between the forest and the trees. But, it better be an off the charts proposal for Lombardi to justify it.
half of what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlaMuller
Your points have a lot of merit and I remember the quotes you referenced. The optimist in me wants to wait this out and see who ends up where, when and for how much. If DL changes his tune 360 degrees, then he will deserve all the wrath he will rightly receive.
davidc1968
You know you're a drunkard when... 
