Sheng Peng: Why Not Brodzinski or Kempe?; Setoguchi Waived; Importance of "Fit" Why doesn't LA call up Brodzinski or Kempe for scoring help?...Why Setoguchi can still play in NHL & why he got waived...Dean Lombardi has to shop wisely for scoring help this Deadline

Roland McKeown would be a good pick up !

The other side is that waiting too long to give players a chance amounts to foregoing low cost production on a team that is typically up against the cap is costly. Not just in terms of dollars against the cap but in terms of wasting time on the player's ELC. For instance, even while I think Forbort is one of the more overrated Kings of recent years, its hard for me to believe that Forbort is/was good enough to play top pair minutes in October but not good enough to displace Rob Scuderi on the third pair last March. My guess is that a lot of the problem here is Sutter and there is no easy solution for that, but still, the Kings cant afford to give anything away any more. And yeah, Purcell needs to be given a real chance.

Roland McKeown would be a good pick up !
- rubberduckies

Sure, he's a real talent. He can probably play the RW and be like Mark Recchi out there on the ice dishing out assists to weak ass Gaborik.

Only the Quacks. Only...

They have little to no choice but to gamble on players in ontario. The upside to that is they can call up and move down certain players until they find that fit.


My question is how does the ladue send down effect the line up?

The best addition Lombardi can make is addition by subtraction and that is to fire Sutter. He did it before and he can do it again.

Do it Deano!

They have little to no choice but to gamble on players in ontario. The upside to that is they can call up and move down certain players until they find that fit.


My question is how does the ladue send down effect the line up?
- MikeOxbyg

It doesn't? LaDue will be back in LA on Thursday. He was sent down because he is waiver exempt and could get three additional games in during the Kings break.

The other side is that waiting too long to give players a chance amounts to foregoing low cost production on a team that is typically up against the cap is costly. Not just in terms of dollars against the cap but in terms of wasting time on the player's ELC. For instance, even while I think Forbort is one of the more overrated Kings of recent years, its hard for me to believe that Forbort is/was good enough to play top pair minutes in October but not good enough to displace Rob Scuderi on the third pair last March.
- Troy_Ice

Good point about foregoing low cost production.

Timing matters too though. Using Brodzinski as an example, in October, when LA might have felt a little safer risking points, he wasn't clearly ready. Now, in February, when he's knocking on the door, the Kings are fighting for their playoff lives, so they might not be so inclined to take the chance. From their perspective, the potential of low-cost production is indeed enticing, but not at the cost of points in the standings.

As for Forbort, in my opinion, he has grown since March. So I can believe he's top-four now and couldn't crack the line-up then.

And if you think that's being too cautious -- remember how much forwards Tanner Pearson, Michael Mersch, Andy Andreoff, Dwight King, Nick Shore, and to some degree, even Tyler Toffoli struggled during their first cup of coffees in Los Angeles. Only the exceptionally-talented Toffoli would probably have been considered "NHL-ready" in his first NHL go-around among this group.
- Sheng Peng

I don't remember Pearson and Toffoli struggling any. They worked out so well and were such assets that they never played in the AHL again. King did have a 6-game call-up in 2010-11 that he did nothing with, but the same questions regarding him existed the following year, and if Sutter had to decided to play the safe, veteran Moreau rather than call up and take a chance on King, they might not have squeaked into the playoffs. That's a perfect example of how, even when the margin of error is slim (as it was in 2012, the year that they finished 8th), taking a risk can be a lot better than playing it safe.

And no, Sutter isn't going anywhere. So Dean Lombardi has to be sure to upgrade LA's scoring ability with somebody his coach will use. Not that such a player is easy to acquire, but if Lombardi manages to achieve that, we've seen that lead to some winning postseason hockey.
- Sheng Peng

We've also seen late season call-ups (like King, Nolan, Toffoli and Pearson) lead to winning postseason hockey. They've nearly been as instrumental as the trade deadline acquisitions. It seems like you're making the case for adding at the trade deadline while cautioning against calling up someone who might struggle, but the rationale for or against one seems to apply to the other. Both are risky and both can backfire or pay off.

So picking through hot Kings trade rumors -- Thomas Vanek? Evander Kane? I think there's a legitimate question of "fit" with these talented forwards. How committed are these wingers to two-way hockey? To a north-south shot mentality? How will they adjust to a veteran Kings locker room?

On the other hand, Gabriel Landeskog and Martin Hanzal seem like strong "fits," but their cost will probably be prohibitive for Los Angeles.
- Sheng Peng

On the other hand, were Carter and Gaborik good "fits" for Sutter hockey when they were acquired and wasn't Versteeg initially seen as a good fit? Sometimes, you might actually want players that don't appear to fit, since that means that they bring something that you don't have and it makes your offense (in their case) more dynamic. Carter and Gaborik have bought partially into the system, but they're still not heavy players at all and they shy away from contact, so they still don't really "fit" what we mean when we talk about being a fit for LA, yet they fit, anyways, because of their unique skills. Perhaps fit is a bit overrated because it forces everyone into similar roles (regardless of skill sets) and, instead, it's better to let players do what they do best.

I don't remember Pearson and Toffoli struggling any. They worked out so well and were such assets that they never played in the AHL again.
- Osprey

Pearson's NHL debut was in the 2013 playoffs against San Jose, where he played an unimpressive five minutes. LA didn't use him again that postseason.

Then in November 2013, he played six games, scoring one goal, before he was sent down again. He was shuttled back and forth until coming back in February and securing his place in the line-up. I recall two Pearsons that season. The lost kid from early in the year and a more assertive winger from February on.

http://www.jewelsfromthec...son-review-tanner-pearson

Toffoli was better when he debuted in March 2013, scoring six points in his first eight games. But even he was assigned back to Manchester in mid-April after being a healthy scratch for eight straight games.

http://lakingsinsider.com...chester-for-playoff-push/

He also was sent down to Manchester to start the 2013-14 season, coming back up for good in November.

That's a perfect example of how, even when the margin of error is slim (as it was in 2012, the year that they finished 8th), taking a risk can be a lot better than playing it safe.
- Osprey

I don't disagree! I also wrote, "Personally, I'd prefer a higher-ceiling option like a Brodzinski be given a look, but I understand where Los Angeles is coming from. It's not as if they're holding back a Connor McDavid-like sure thing."

It seems like you're making the case for adding at the trade deadline while cautioning against calling up someone who might struggle, but I don't see the same distinction, since they're both risky and can both pay off.
- Osprey

Not what I'm saying. Once again, I'm trying to explain my perception of management's point of view, but noting that unlike Versteeg and Purcell, they need to take extra care to get somebody who fits.

If I'm cautioning anything in regards to calling somebody up, it's to not anoint the prospect of the week a savior. Not talking about you specifically doing that.

On the other hand, were Carter and Gaborik good "fits" for Sutter hockey when they were acquired and wasn't Versteeg initially seen as a good fit? Sometimes, you might actually want players that don't appear to fit, since that means that they bring something that you don't have and it makes your offense (in their case) more dynamic.
- Osprey

You're not wrong, but it's a problem when the coach won't play the "outsider." So get a risky player, sure, but hopefully it's somebody who is so good regardless that the coach has to play him.

Personally, I never saw Carter as a poor fit for LA. Going back to 2012, I wanted him over Rick Nash from Day 1. Indeed with Gaborik, there were questions. But he was contributing at such a high level then that he couldn't be scratched -- unlike, say, this season. Regardless of fit. Versteeg, I don't remember.

it's better to let players do what they do best.
- Osprey

Carter and Gaborik have bought partially into the system, but they're still not heavy players at all and they shy away from contact
- Osprey

I agree generally with the first quote, but I'm not in charge. That said, I believe in some sort of structure. LA's, for better or worse, is probably more rigid than other teams.

As for what the system is, I don't believe "heavy" or "contact" are essential requirements to play under Sutter and Lombardi. I believe the emphasis is on winning puck battles, which includes "heavy" and "contact," but also invites a wide range of other skills.

The best addition Lombardi can make is addition by subtraction and that is to fire Sutter. He did it before and he can do it again.

Do it Deano!
- verwustung

Good luck with John Stevens as coach if that happens

...
- Sheng Peng

I stand corrected on the timelines. I didn't remember them getting sent back down mid-season.

Still, I'm not sure that it's really fair to say that kids like them "struggled" because they got their very first cups of coffee of the NHL and were sent down a week or two later. You caution against "anoint[ing] the prospect of the week a savior," which I agree with, but also characterizing them as struggling if they don't stick around and make a positive contribution seems like kind of putting the expectations on them that you're cautioning against, don't you think?

You're not wrong, but it's a problem when the coach won't play the "outsider." So get a risky player, sure, but hopefully it's somebody who is so good regardless that the coach has to play him.
- Sheng Peng

Yeah, that's the issue. If you get a Carter or Gaborik, their reputations impel the coach to play them, and play them in positions to succeed. If you get a Versteeg, on the other hand, there's a lot more temptation to treat him as a spare part that the GM gave you, one that you don't necessarily need to use. That's also how call-ups are treated, but the nice thing about them is that, if they don't exactly fit, you can send them back down. If you acquire a Versteeg that the coach doesn't really know what do with, you're sort of stuck with him for the rest of the year.

As for what the system is, I don't believe "heavy" or "contact" are essential requirements to play under Sutter and Lombardi. I believe the emphasis is on winning puck battles, which includes "heavy" and "contact," but also invites a wide range of other skills.

This is where I believe Seto fell short. In more and more games he seemed to avoid contact more than applying the contact. That, and with the fact that he had spurts of games where he was flying out there and others just disappeared. In his position, I think they wanted to see flying more than not and aggressive puck hunt. He didn't do that consistently.
Just my .02

Sure, he's a real talent. He can probably play the RW and be like Mark Recchi out there on the ice dishing out assists to weak ass Gaborik.

Only the Quacks. Only...
- verwustung

👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

is it really high pressure to score with kopitar this season? brown, king, gabbo, lewis, andreoff, nolan, pucell, seto etc have all lined up there and no one is doing it, so anything is gravy at this point.

Honestly, I think they're just looking for someone to kick-start Kopi

Good luck with John Stevens as coach if that happens
- dragonoffrost

Give me Stevens please. Sutter cannot win with this lineup then he is really in trouble.

Looks like Kempe was called up.

Lombardi in Toronto to watch leafs v. islanders.

Muzzin, X, X for JVR ,X ?

Lombardi in Toronto to watch leafs v. islanders.

Muzzin, X, X for JVR ,X ?
- MikeOxbyg

The only issue with JVR is I don't think he'll resign with the Kings. If he will then great go get him but I think he's looking at kadri. Not looking forwRd to getting another "Lucic" for one year then have them bail

Looks like Kempe was called up.
- KINGS67

Not yet. They are "expected to" call him up.

Los Angeles Kings are expected to call up top forward prospect Adrian Kempe

Not yet. They are "expected to" call him up.

Los Angeles Kings are expected to call up top forward prospect Adrian Kempe
- tkecanuck341

Oh......well still sounds like good news