[This is part 4b of a multi-post analysis of "what ails the Kings." If you haven't read the previous posts, understand that each "part" is an attempt to lay the blame (if there is any blame) in a different place. Part 1 set the table; part 2 blamed the captains; part 3 blamed the coaches; part 4a (and 4b) blamed the GM.]

In this chapter, we're going to pursue the narrative of an "alternate history." In this version of Kings history, in June, 2008, the Kings do not trade Mike Cammalleri to the Calgary Flames.

What's the point?

It occurs to me (because everyone has been talking about it) that the Kings' recent problems come down to the absence of a sniper, a year-long power-play drought and a lack of team speed. Every once in a while you see someone comment that the Kings need Cammalleri's scoring, and I am quick to point out why he was dealt. (1) He wanted so much money that it would have thrown the entire cap structure off, not that season, but years down the road (i.e. now), because all the contracts that followed would use Cammalleri's contract as a benchmark; and (2) instead of the Kings logo tattooed on his ass, he had a self-portrait. 

I was strongly in favor of this trade at the time and I still am. If I was mildly disappointed in the return, I also realized that Lombardi was going not going to get top dollar for a player everyone on the planet knew had to be traded. Probably, everyone in Kings-land would have dubbed Lombardi a genius had he selected Tyler Myers with the pick he packaged the Calgary pick (and the Dallas pick from the Norstrom deal) to get. But he traded down and took Colten Teubert, who he flipped (three years later) for Dustin Penner, which is ironic, or at least symmetrical, as we are now (we being me in this exercise) considering what the repercussions of not trading Cammalleri would have been. 

With that, let's turn back the clock. It's July 5, 2007, the day that RFA Cammalleri, unhappy with the Kings' reported offer of $2.6MM per season, filed for arbitration, seeking $6MM/year. A month later, the Kings would prevail in arbitration. Cammalleri was awarded $3.1 and $3.6MM for the following two seasons, after which he would be a UFA and free to seek his $6MM. Lombardi traded him a year later to Calgary, and a year after that, Cammalleri signed a five-year deal with Montreal for $6MM per year.

But all that is what really happened.  What if this happened instead:

Continue reading this post »

I guess maybe you can tell from the headline that my heart's not so much into arguing that it's all the fault of Dean Lombardi, who -- as the argument usually goes -- is just too conservative to pull the trigger on The Big Trade, pony up for Mr UFA, etc.. I don't believe it, but I will give it my best shot. 

A recap of what we've done so far: in part one, we identified the problem; in part two, I decided I would attempt to argue each of four (partially but not entirely mutually-exclusive) solutions, starting with blaming it all on the captain(s); in part three, I attempted to blame it all on the coach. Now, in part four, it's Lombardi's fault. 

So, without further ado, here's why we should blame Dean:

Continue reading this post »

Part One is here.

Part Two is here.

Lombardi, Murray discuss impending free agents " LA Kings Insider

MURRAY: "Alexei Ponikarovsky is a] big body. A 6-(foot-)5 guy. I need him to score more, though. I relayed that to him, in the last talk I had with him on the morning of Game 6 here, in the morning skate, that this is the reason why (he wasn’t playing). It wasn’t because of poor play. I mean, he’s trying, he cares. He’s going to the net. He’s using his size most of the time. I just need more of what you’ve shown for seven years in your resume, a 20-goal scorer. What happened?"

Here's what happened:

Ponikarovsky played against the third toughest competition (per QUALCOMP) of any Kings forward, behind only Smyth and Stoll, and only behind them by a hair. Tougher than Handzus. Tougher than Brown or Simmonds. And much tougher than he played against last year in Toronto and Pittsburgh. And he did this while playing with the weakest teammates (per QUALTEAM) of any non-rookie except Peter Harrold. (The players who drew weaker teammates than Poni were Harrold, Schenn, Lewis, Clifford, Westgarth and Zeiler.) 

In other words, he had just about the toughest job on the team. 

And how did that effect his play? Well, let's see...

Continue reading this post »

Part One is here.

Player evaluation: Brown - LA Kings Insider

Per usual, Brown gave 100-percent effort in every game and regularly led the Kings in both shots on goal and hits. A lead-by-example captain, Brown has total respect in the locker room.

If you couldn't tell from part one (link above), I believe the pattern of (sometimes historic) collapses shown by this Kings' team over the last two seasons must end. We no longer have the luxury of calling these collapses "uncharacteristic." My knee-jerk reaction: it's a failure of leadership: captains and coaches.

But knee-jerk doesn't equal true. 

So here's the exercise. I'm going to make a list of the arguable solutions, and then I'm going to take my best shot at arguing each one. I put that in bold in order to discourage people from commenting that (a) I'm a total ******* and/or (b) my arguments all contradict each other and/or (c) my arguments contradict everything I have ever said, and/or (d) how can you say that about so-and-so!?

(but feel free; it's a blog.)

Yes, it's a little like the lawyer who says, "my client was 100 miles away at the time, and, if you don't buy that, it was self-defense."

Here are all the solutions that come to mind:

1. Change nothing. The team will grow together, and next time they're on top of the world (ahead 4-0 in a playoff game, or #1 in the league in the standings) they won't fall apart, because they have learned.
2. Get a new coach. It's the coach's job to right the ship when it starts to capsize. As Lombardi said (quote and link in previous post), Detroit doesn't go 0-9. They stop the bleeding.
3. Get a new captain. Being captain causes Brown to try to do too much, and he obviously has not been able to "right the ship" in several instances.
4. Get better players. The reason for these collapses is not the fault of the captain or the coaches, all of whom have been doing the best they can with the hand they're dealt. The team has been playing above its abilities, and while that's been a minor miracle, it can't go on forever. The collapses are the point in the story when the coyote realizes he's running in mid-air, 1000 feet up.

In this post, we pick on captains.

Continue reading this post »

After the Kings' loss in game four a couple of weeks ago, I wrote a post entitled "Is this is pattern." In that post, I covered the Kings' recent history of peaks followed immediately by collapse. I won't rehash that now, except to say that I identified several key moments over the last two seasons, in each of which the Kings collapsed in the face of success.

• 2010 Playoffs against Vancouver, with a lead going into the third period of game four, and a chance to go up 3-1 in the series.
• 2010-11 first fifteen games: the Kings are 12-3, #1 in the league.
• December 27, 2010: Kings dominate the Sharks 4-0 (the game with the amazing Kopitar to Brown aerial pass).
• Trade deadline day. 
• 2011 Playoffs against San Jose: up 4-0 in game three with a chance to go up 2-1 in the series. 

The post linked above (and below) goes into excruciating detail. Here's part of my conclusion:

Continue reading this post »

2010 Playoffs, round one, Kings vs. Canucks

The Kings lose the first game in OT, win the second game in OT, win the third game and are leading at the end of the second period of the fourth game, with a chance to go up 3-1 in the series. More than a chance. Because the Kings hadn't blown a lead after two periods all season. They are a defensive team that knows how to shut it down, protect the lead. Except this time they don't. Uncharacteristically, they fall apart in the third period and lose the game. The series, which might have been 3-1 Kings, or even (but for Michal Handzus celebrating in OT when he should have been making sure the puck was over the line) 4-0, is now tied 2-2. 

Game Five is a blow-out. Quick is pulled. Ersberg comes in and is worse and Quick is put back in. Before we know it, the Kings are down 3-2. Two days later, the series is over. 

November 15, 2010

New season. The Kings are 12-3-0. 2nd in the league in points, 1st in the league by WIN% (Washington is 3 points ahead but has played three more games). They have allowed 7 goals-against in their last 7 games. There is lots of talk of the Kings' new greatness. All of Brayden Schenn's, Oscar Moller's (until his recent recall) and Scott Parse's games are played in that first stretch. Schenn is then sent to Brandon. Parse has surgery. But that's okay; after all, the Kings have managed the 12-3 record with Drew Doughty out nearly half of those games with a concussion. Now he's back. The sky's the limit.

[much much more after the jump]

Continue reading this post »

Quiet, serious Kings prepare for Game 5 " LA Kings Insider

MURRAY: "The series is 3-1. I look at it as a self-inflicted issue right now. [...][T]hose goals against are plays that basically we hand to them through breakdowns and reads that have been made all year long. That’s a part of the game that we have taken a lot of pride in over the last three years, is to be a good, solid defensive hockey club, to do things the right way all of the time, as a team. So when I say I need players to play good, I need them to play the right way. We don’t need to have any one player, two players, feel that they need to put the whole thing on their shoulders and play extra-special, because that’s when problems start to come back at you and comes right back down our throat."

However:

LA Kings Head Coach Terry Murray Reflects On 2009-10 Season " Frozen Royalty
[In the playoffs against Vancouver], young defenseman Drew Doughty and Jack Johnson raised their games to levels not previously seen [...]. "[They] really stepped up in the playoffs," Murray beamed. "These two young players really understood what the playoffs are about. [...]They understood that ‘now’s it’s time—I’ve got to step up, I’ve got take my game to the next level.’[...] [T]hey knew what to do, they had that in them, and that’s the kind of game we’re looking for as we move forward into this year."

Take it to the next level, but stick to the system. Do what you've been doing, only more so. Step up, stay put. Be intense, yet calm. Bring the energy, don't panic. Play to your potential, and/or within yourself. It's a zen riddle. Whatever you do, don't think of a white elephant.

The problem with "step up" as a direction or instruction is, you can't act on it. It doesn't actually describe anything, other than "be better now." Or maybe, "you've been really great, but we believe that you can transcend your current abilities and be even better than you have been, and that's what's needed now, because it's the playoffs and if you don't step up we lose and you will have not reached the potential we believed you had. Now go out there and win!"

When you play a rigorous defensive system, stepping up doesn't mean squat. The system is, essentially, a fluid sequence of actions and reactions. If they do this, you do that. If he plays the puck x, you counter y. The system requires that every player trust that every other player is going to do exactly what he is supposed to do under the system. 

Any new action, any variation, any stepping up of any kind, will, at best -- if you're lucky -- require everyone else on the ice to adapt very quickly to a new situation. Something that hasn't been happening all year is now happening. But the team has been playing within the system for two years or longer. You can't just suddenly start calling audibles and expect no unforeseen consequences. 

Yes, I understand that the "step up" message (the part of it that's not just an empty cliche) is about battling harder, winning the scrums, leaving it all on the ice, etc., etc.. But those things are already built into the system, they are already required elements. Presumably, the players have already been executing the various elements of the system, because it's been working for two years. Also, that's why these players are playing. Because they could play the system. If they couldn't, they wouldn't be playing. 

I don't think it's reasonable to expect players who must must must perform job x within the system to still be able to do x while "taking their play to the next level." Either you have your man or you don't. Either you finish your check or you don't. Either you have your stick in the lane or you don't. Either you communicate with your partner or you don't. There isn't some elite better version of doing any of those things. There's only doing them or not doing them.

You can't get the puck in deep...to the next level. But, if you think you have to take your play to the next level, you certainly might consider making that extra move at the blueline, when normally you would dump it in; or pinch when if you don't succeed it's an out-numbered attack; or try to pick the corner with your shot, when you would normally just try to get the puck to the crease, so your teammates converging there can get the rebound. Picking the corner might result in a spectacular goal by you (you stepped up!), but nine times out of ten it will result in a wide shot and a change of possession with you and your linemates now stuck 200 feet from where they need to be. 

That's why people said if the Kings are going to win these games, it's going to be boring. Except for the winning. The winning is never boring. 

Okay, we'll call that "glass half empty" part one. Since I didn't even say what I came to say. Part 2 tomorrow...

[silver lining: Ducks just lost in OT]

I seem to recall he could have had about ten goals if it weren't for some freakishly weird bad luck on several plays. 

That is all.