The Kings' Five Burning Questions

#1: Bernier, by game 30.

#2: The ceiling is somewhere near Pluto…provided he works for it.

#3: No, no, and again, no.

#4: Fewer points. 98.

#5: As always, I’ll root for Mr. Taylor!

A question so burning, it doesn’t need a verb.

#1-The best news would be both goalies playing so well the question remains unresolved. I am hoping the games are divided at a ratio of about 3.5:1.5, with Quick maintaining a better GAA than last year. And, I hope Quick uses the “poke check” significantly less; he began to incorporate it mid-season, and by the slump it was too predictable and mostly ineffective.

#2-Last year Doughty decided to place more emphasis on Blake-style hip checks and on having a more accurate shot on net from the point. This year, he is already used to the new curve on the stick, with an entire season of performance under the spotlight behind him. I can’t wait to see what he is looking to focus on this year. His upside probably includes Deputy Prime Minister, winning a powerball lottery and having to choose between Christina Aguilera and Scarlett Johansson. Then, he would turn 25 and hooboy, lookout.

#3-I don’t often like the plus-minus stat, but when we do the math after three years on Kovi’s actual positive contribution in goals-for after subtracting goals-against, I predict the cost per goal per year will be exceeded only by the count of laughs per mention of the contract.

#4-The Bodog over-under is 101.5. Perfect, I think, likely within 2 points either way. If we can get a steady line-up that has time to “gel” with a 4th line that can honestly contribute 8-10 minutes a game, 103-105. If we are a 3-line team looking for a platoon guy to surprise us occasionally, and Kopi repeats a lengthy offensive slump, the range is likely to be 95-98. Anything below 95 will be “same old Kings,” and that just cannot happen. Speaking of which, I hope the only time I see Jeremy Roanick is when he is muted between periods on an occasional network game, and not on the Kings website.

#5-In sports, your high-profile failures can be expected to outshine your high-profile successes. Taylor was handicapped by the same reluctance of big-name players to come here as Lombardi struggles with now. I always liked Dave Taylor, still do, as both player and GM, but he only got us so far and ultimately did not deliver the Cup. It also pisses me off that Louie DeBrusk does analysis on TV broadcast; ever since he crushed Taylor from behind, with a hit that was shoulder on nape sending Taylor into a half-somersault face-first into the ice, I have held a grudge. Not at a Craig Muni level, but similar. I just hope those classless clowns knew who they really were and felt it when Taylor scored that goal on a rush up the right wing in the ’93 playoffs…

Hickey just got Bernier’d…looks like I’ll be signing up for the Manchester streaming. :)

Really? Willy Mitchell is now chopped liver?

1 Quick with Bernie on back to back, busy weeks and the eastern swing. Lots of second guessing with goalie win or slump streaks. Reminds me of the Ducks cup run situation in goal. May come down to who stays healthy.

2 Doughty will be better still and Johnson appears to be turning a corner.

3 Kovalchuk or the Core. Odds say the Core continues to improve as Kovalchuk glides past his prime and becomes a white elephant.

4 Less. 94-96. In the Kings Cup year they struggled to secure a playoffs spot with just 88 points (having notched 102 only two seasons earlier). At least three too many last minute or lucky bounce wins last season.

5 Taylor signaled a turn around in management from Rogie’s “tall glass and a cigar” deals. Lombardi is moving team management to its next logical step

but I want to get an answer here too:

I’d like to see a successful argument that starts with the following sentence:

"Clune-4th C-Westy is a better line than Clifford-4th C-Westy because…"

I’m asking because I can’t think of a single one…

I hope Clunatic proves me wrong.

I won’t regurgitate the overwhelming evidence already presented as to why Schenn, Hickey, Lokti and ESPECIALLY Cliffy (Cliffer? It’s gotta be one of the two…) make the Kings better, so I’ll just pose a question: how much are we going to get for some fringe NHLers who other GMs would instantly realize are being traded b/c they’re clearly outside our plans going forward? I’m not saying we should just let them leave for nothing, I’m asking what could we really get for Clune+Ersberg? TL & Wiskie? A 3rd rd pick or two? Is that worth keeping these kids off the ice? With how well they’ve been playing against NHLers, wouldn’t it be more detrimental to send them down for a month waiting to find a trade partner, while the kids revert to playing against slower, crappier competition?

Believe me, I’m not looking this “having depth” gift horse in the mouth, but isn’t the goal to “give the team the best chance to win?” Plus, even if we lose TL, Clunatic and Wiskie, we’re still super deep. We don’t need a pick and we dot need a veteran (that’s the reason we’re having this discussion in the first place!)

Look, there’s no way of knowing if these kids are ready for this challenge, but we do know they have much less to gain playing against weaker, crappier competition.

DL should take the risk and give them the shot they’ve earned. If DL really believes his rhetoric from his Kovalchuk justifications (and I believe he does) we’re still at least a year away anyway, so get them some pro experience!

Come on DL/TM, dont make this decision with your head, make it with your heart & your head.

See, good teams rid themselves of marginal players all the time. That’s one of fhe primary traits that seperate them from the crappy teams who pick them up.