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 anjae11eden
You think DL gave up a 2nd rounder to put Richardson on waivers?
DL has publicly stated that both Boyle AND Purcell have spots on the
You think DL gave up a 2nd rounder to put Richardson on waivers?
DL has publicly stated that both Boyle AND Purcell have spots on the team to lose. That leads me to believe that Purcell will have to stink it up to get sent down.
I don't think his point was that Richardson will be waived but rather that if Richardson was still waivers exempt, like Purcell, that it could be either one of them that ends up in Manchester as an insurance policy for the inevitable injury.
I don't think his point was that Richardson will be waived but rather that if Richardson was still waivers exempt, like Purcell, that it could be either one of them that ends up in Manchester as an insurance policy for the inevitable injury.
I got that. My point was DL gave up a 2nd rounder for this guy...He ain't headed to Manchvegas.
You think DL gave up a 2nd rounder to put Richardson on waivers?
DL has publicly stated that both Boyle AND Purcell have spots on the team to lose. That leads me to believe that Purcell will have to stink it up to get sent down.
no, what i said was...
Quote:
i see an unpopular business decision being made in order to avoid any sticky waivers situation between the end of camp and a necessary recall due to injury sometime in the season.
meaning that the odd man with the least to lose by being sent down will be sent down, and my prior to training camp guess is that 'odd' player is Ted Purcell.
the one name you've omitted in the above post is Moulson, who i assume you believe will be the one that gets sent down. given the spasm of action the young players (excluding Brad Richardson) saw last season, it is my opinion that Matt Moulson is probably the most complete and "NHL ready" of the three.
Lombardi's public statements lead me to believe that he isn't the coach. the only way for Dean to ensure any or all of his statements can even come to fruition is by doing his job as a General Manager, which is to provide an open field for competition among the reserves list in lieu of free agent acquisitions, and he has done that. the rest is up to the players and the coaching staff. ANY side-stepping the on-ice staff's personnel decisions because he has an opinion is damn near good enough cause for his dismissal.
say Brian Boyle makes the team and is slotted as the second line Right Wing (my opinion of where he should be) and Moulson, Richardson and Purcell battle it out, and one gets the slot with Handzus and Calder on the 3rd line, and the other is slotted to bring some jam onto the 4th line with Armstrong, Ellis, Ivanans, whomever. two of those three are more adept than the third in the bottom six. are you more comfortable seeing a top-six player like Purcell getting 6 minutes of grind time a night in the NHL or 18-20 minutes a night on the #1 line in Manchester (as a second year pro, mind you), constantly in full throttle and not subject to waivers?
__________________ GESCOM:it's never too early to start beefing up your obituary!
I got that. My point was DL gave up a 2nd rounder for this guy...He ain't headed to Manchvegas.
I understand that DL has Richardson slotted for the NHL roster BUT the primary reason he won't be playing in Manchester next year is because he would have to pass through waivers and he would certainly be claimed. The asset he dealt for Richardson would then be wasted.
Prior to the 06-07 season everyone in the organization felt Patrick O'Sullivan was ready for the prime time. He was coming off an AHL ROY award winning season where he scored 47 goals and 93 points. He was given a low number and the spot was his to lose. The only problem was that Patrick was not ready and the unthinkable happened, he was sent back to the A. The better of the two players that Dean Lombardi had swapped for Pavol Demitra got off to a very bad start and the situation was dealt with accordingly.
I'm not saying Richardson will fumble the ball the way O'Sullivan did but it's possible and if he was waivers exempt you better believe he would be playing in Manchester regardless of what asset DL used to acquire him.
meaning that the odd man with the least to lose by being sent down will be sent down, and my prior to training camp guess is that 'odd' player is Ted Purcell.
the one name you've omitted in the above post is Moulson, who i assume you believe will be the one that gets sent down. given the spasm of action the young players (excluding Brad Richardson) saw last season, it is my opinion that Matt Moulson is probably the most complete and "NHL ready" of the three.
Absolutely agree. I was completely satisfied with Moulson's 22 game stint last year and am looking forward to 80+ games of solid two-way play from the diamond in the rough that DL plucked from Pittsburgh's scrap heap.
Absolutely agree. I was completely satisfied with Moulson's 22 game stint last year and am looking forward to 80+ games of solid two-way play from the diamond in the rough that DL plucked from Pittsburgh's scrap heap.
and i don't think that it's by any strange coinkidink that he also happens to be the oldest of the 4 either.
meaning that the odd man with the least to lose by being sent down will be sent down, and my prior to training camp guess is that 'odd' player is Ted Purcell.
the one name you've omitted in the above post is Moulson, who i assume you believe will be the one that gets sent down. given the spasm of action the young players (excluding Brad Richardson) saw last season, it is my opinion that Matt Moulson is probably the most complete and "NHL ready" of the three.
I believe no such thing. I believe DL when he says they are going with the youth. That means to me that guys like Armstrong and Calder will be used sparingly i.e. if any of the kids prove to be NOT NHL ready. I agree that Moulson is ready and probably more ready than Teddy (heh heh). Consider the possibility of guys like Armstrong being scratched a lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gescom
Lombardi's public statements lead me to believe that he isn't the coach. the only way for Dean to ensure any or all of his statements can even come to fruition is by doing his job as a General Manager, which is to provide an open field for competition among the reserves list in lieu of free agent acquisitions, and he has done that. the rest is up to the players and the coaching staff. ANY side-stepping the on-ice staff's personnel decisions because he has an opinion is damn near good enough cause for his dismissal.
DL is Murray's boss. Plain and simple. I'm sure as in any good working relationship they will listen to each others opinion, but I think we both know who has the final say on who is sent down or called up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gescom
say Brian Boyle makes the team and is slotted as the second line Right Wing (my opinion of where he should be) and Moulson, Richardson and Purcell battle it out, and one gets the slot with Handzus and Calder on the 3rd line, and the other is slotted to bring some jam onto the 4th line with Armstrong, Ellis, Ivanans, whomever. two of those three are more adept than the third in the bottom six. are you more comfortable seeing a top-six player like Purcell getting 6 minutes of grind time a night in the NHL or 18-20 minutes a night on the #1 line in Manchester (as a second year pro, mind you), constantly in full throttle and not subject to waivers?
I see your point and agree with it for the most part. However, I'm still not as convinced that Calder and Armstrong will be as permanent as you think they will be.
The other thing to consider is what ROLE they may be given. If Purcell needs to get a little more sandpaper to his game then maybe they give him that assignment on the third line. It worked for Patty O on the PK didn't it? 10 minutes a game on the 3rd line in the NHL is still 10 minutes more NHL experience than if he was lighting it up in the AHL on the first line. It may only be his 2nd pro season, but he's also not a 19 year old, and he's already proven he can score at that level. Time to start proving things at other levels don't you think?
I was considering Hickey as well, does the first "year" that he played 6 games or something count as a year of juniors meaning he has one more year left or is he now ready to play in the ahl if he doesnt make the kings ?
...Hickey has played three full years of junior hockey, plus five games in 2004-05. I'm told that does NOT make him eligible for the AHL under its agreement with the CHL. A player must play 25 games in order to have officially ``played'' a CHL season...
