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 LA Kings Talk within the LetsGoKings.com forums, at Los Angeles Kings Hockey Fan Forum. Originally Posted by King'sPawn
Speaking of conjecture
They could have held onto the players and then tried to trade them at a different time.
Well Grebeshkov was a RFA
They could have held onto the players and then tried to trade them at a different time.
Well Grebeshkov was a RFA at the end of the season (do you use "an" or "a" if you're leading into an acronym that starts with a consonant that is pronounced with a vowel at the beginning???) so they wouldn't have had too many opportunities to trade him. He split for Russia if you'll recall.
As for Tambellini... what has he done to lead anyone to believe that his trade value wasn't at it's peak at the time of that trade?
Conjecture conjecture conjecture.... the longer he stinks the better that trade looks.
The whole team was playing poorly. Maybe if any of the players actually looked like they gave a **** during that final run we might've seen the potential of Parrish in front of the net and broken kneecap Sopel.
People underestimate exactly how bad the Kings had to be in that stretch to miss the playoffs that year.
Well Grebeshkov was a RFA at the end of the season (do you use "an" or "a" if you're leading into an acronym that starts with a consonant that is pronounced with a vowel at the beginning???) so they wouldn't have had too many opportunities to trade him. He split for Russia if you'll recall.
As for Tambellini... what has he done to lead anyone to believe that his trade value wasn't at it's peak at the time of that trade?
Conjecture conjecture conjecture.... the longer he stinks the better that trade looks.
You use an "an."
That trade stunk at the time, and it will always stink even if Tambellini and Grebeshkov do not amount to anything. You were giving up two players with promise for a middling NHL'er who was injured at the time, plus a rental. Even if the promising players don't work out, it is still a bad deal. And I still think Grebs will be a pretty decent, and maybe first pairing, NHL defenseman some day.
They could have held onto the players and then tried to trade them at a different time.
Exactly. Had they kept them, who knows if they might have been used to land Pronger when he wanted out of EDM.
I guess my beef is that you don't trade 2 first rounders for a guy with a busted kneecap and a pending UFA who had said he wants to play in Minn. Bad asset management.
It is only bad assest management if you miss the playoffs... which the Kings did. At the time of the trade the Kings were in a slide but they were still in the playoffs, not just fighthing to get into them. The idea that a top six forward who crashes the net, something the Kings needed by the way, would help right the ship and at worst help the Kings tread water into the playoffs was not as far fetched as some like to pretend. The Kings should have made the playoffs that year and it is one of the worst collapses I can remember (not the worst, but pretty bad) that kept them out.
Everyone wanted the Kings to get a powerforward who could score and thats what they got... it didn't work, the trade was a failure but lets not pretend this was some epicly bad trade. It was a prospect who promptly bolted back to Russia and a former first round pick with good potential who hadn't made the jump yet (and still hasn't really succeeded but has one heck of a wrister). Look at the prices paid at every deadline for rentals. The kings didn't send their first round pick in the deal nor did they send one of their top three prospects. They didn't lose a young player off the roster and they aquired the types of players they needed. The trade turned out to be a total bust but many GMs have made far bigger gambles and I don't hear about that constantly. Kings fans got overly attached to what their kids could become because the history of losing is long and for the first time in a long time there was a pipeline forming and as a result of the Kings collapse, DT is now bashed regularly for a deal that didn't work out... what about all the good things he did to setup the organization so that a kid like Tambs could be dealt and we could still have the solid young group that DL inherited.
The trade failed, its over, and nobody in that trade has done anything for the teams they went to... its really not worth continueing to care about regardless of what you might have could have done to manage those assests differently.
Well Grebeshkov was a RFA at the end of the season (do you use "an" or "a" if you're leading into an acronym that starts with a consonant that is pronounced with a vowel at the beginning???)
"An" would be more correct, unless you actually pronounce it as "restricted free agent", but that's less frequently used. If the acronym is a word (rather than letters like in RFA case), you again use the vocalization method, for instance it's "a NASA".
Isn't it bad asset management when you blow your (smallish) load on a pie-in-the-sky hope that you're actually going to make and do some damage in the playoffs WHEN you're in the middle-to-latter stages of a slooooooooow rebuilding process (upon which you've hung your hat as a GM)?
Or, to quote Kenny Rogers (again!), "You got to know when to hold em, know when to fold em..."
I don't see too many people then or now saying that Waddell's been exhibiting good asset management.
Dr. Naysay
