SBNation.com User Blog: Quisp

Why didn't the 1999 Stars petition to have Brad Lukowich or Doug Lidster added to the cup?

Quisp — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 04:13:28 -0000

The Stars did petition to have the names of Brent Severyn (30 games, no playoff games) and Derek Plante (16 games, no playoff games) included, and the petition was granted. But they didn't petition for Brad Lukowich (14 regular season and 8 playoff games) or Doug Lidster (17 regular season and 4 playoff games), both of whom played in the playoffs.

I can't understand what would motivate them to do this. Is there a backstory? Does anyone have a theory?

Bullet Points: Cleaning Out My Locker

Quisp — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 06:48:37 -0000

Not being much for big build-ups -- unless it's a cup run -- here's what you need to know:

I'm returning to my little self-run blog. Some of you might remember it.
"Some of you" = about five of you, and I could probably name names. But I won't.
It used to be called Kings Kool-Aid.
Now it's called McSorley's Stick.
It is to be found at www.mcsorleys-stick.com.
At the new/old blog I will continue to do pretty much what I have done here.
Niesy is in charge of Jewels from the Crown now.
She is cool and smart.
She's got a couple of new bloggers to introduce, but I will leave that to her.
Really, I'm not leaving. It's more like the blog has reproduced. Now there are two.
I waited until four minutes after midnight, so you would know it's not an April Fool's Joke...

Late season collapse sweepstakes: 2012 Leafs vs. 2006 Kings

Quisp — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 17:49:07 -0000

Has there ever been a bigger late-season collapse than this Leafs one? | ProHockeyTalk

Since Feb. 6 – when the Leafs were 28-19-6 and on the way to their first playoff appearance since 2003 – they’ve gone 5-17-3 without a single victory at the Air Canada Centre. They haven’t just lost games either — they’ve lost them spectacularly. Five of them by four goals or more. One 8-0. [...] There have been similar, and arguably worse, collapses in other sports. The 2011 Red Sox lost 18 of their final 24 to blow a nine-game lead over the Rays, topping it off with a blown save in the final game of the season. The 2007 Mets blew a seven-game lead with 17 games left. The 1993 Dolphins started 9-2 and finished 0-5 to miss the playoffs.

But what about NHL late-season collapses that resulted in teams missing the playoffs? The 2006-07 Oilers were 28-24-4 on Feb. 11 and went 4-19-3 down the stretch, but they didn’t fall out of a playoff spot. The 2002-03 Penguins fell apart, but their fall started in January, so calling it a "late-season" collapse is a bit of a stretch.

Let's consider the 2005-2006 Los Angeles Kings. This was the Andy Murray team that was one of the best Kings team in franchise history for much of the season, before the wheels fell off, leading to the firing of everyone and the dawn of the Lombardi era.

On January 23, the Kings were 30-18-3, 4th in the West, 4 points out of 1st in the conference.
On March 7, 2006, they were 35-23-5, tied for 6th, 2 points out of 4th in the conference.
On April 13, 2006, they were 40-35-5, in 10th place, 8 points out of 8th, mathematically eliminated from the playoffs with two games to go.
(They won the last two games of the season though. Woo.)
The Leafs' run has been 5-17-3 since their 53rd game. The '06 Kings managed 10-17-2 from their 51st game until they were done losing and had completely destroyed themselves.
The key run for the Kings began on March 11, at which point they were in 6th, a point out of 5th, 5 points out of 4th, with 17 games left.
They went 2-10 over their next 12 games.
The worst this season's Leafs managed over any 12 games of their collapse has been 2-9-1, from February 7 to March 3.
That's not quite as bad as the Kings (but close).
And it happened a month earlier than the Kings' cratering, so the Kings get bonus points for being worse later in the season.

The '06 Kings' collapse was not appreciably worse than that of the '12 Leafs, but it was of the same magnitude, and with the same result.

[note to Leafs' fans: six years later, and the only Kings player left from that team is Dustin Brown; if you look at the entire Kings' reserve list from that season, the only ones who are still Kings are Brown and three prospects who hadn't played a pro game yet, Anze Kopitar, Jonathan Quick and Scott Parse.]

Post-Game Bullets: uh oh

Quisp — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 06:58:03 -0000

		28-Mar	29-Mar	30-Mar	31-Mar	2-Apr	3-Apr	5-Apr	6-Apr	7-Apr
SJS	88	ANA	PHX		DAL		DAL	LAK		LAK
DAL	87	EDM		VAN	SJS		SJS	NAS		STL
PHX	87		SJS		ANA		CBJ		STL	MIN
COL	86	VAN		CGY				CBJ		NAS
LAK	86	CGY		EDM	MIN	EDM		SJS		SJS
CGY	85	LAK		COL	VAN			VAN		ANA

The remaining schedule breaks down into three sections. (1) before 4/1, (2) 4/2-4/5, (3) 4/6-4/7.
In considering what needs to happen, I'm working from the following premise: the Kings absolutely cannot go into those last two games with San Jose needing to win both of them.
The only way the Kings can put themselves in an ideal situation (where they don't need any points) with regard to those San Jose games is if they go 4-0 between now and then.
Even that (4-0) might not be enough, but it probably would be.
I think it's reasonable to expect San Jose to win 2 out 3 of its next three games and 2 out of 3 of its last three. That's 96 points.
I think it's reasonable to expect Dallas to do the same. 2 out of 3, then 2 out of 3. 95 points.
Phoenix has five games left. Reasonable? 3 out of 5. 93 points.
Colorado: 3 of 4. 92 points.
Calgary: 3 of 5. 91 points.
The Kings will lose the ROW tie-breaker with Dallas, and are tied currently with Phoenix in ROWs.
LA and Phoenix also tied in the season series -- which means if we end up tied with Phoenix, it will go to goal-differential. The Kings currently have a 12 goal advantage on the Coyotes in GD, so that's reassuring.
My feeling is, the Kings need to get 94 points.
And: they need to get at least to 92 by the time we get to the last two games.
Which means we need six points out of the next four games.
3-1-0.
To pile on with the sports voodoo, I do not want to go into the last three games needing to win 2 of 3.
So the Kings really need to win the next three games.
Of course, it would be nice if some of those other teams would go on losing streaks.
Unfortunately, the Kings are the ones who just dropped two in a row, in regulation.

Go Pete!

Quisp — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 23:27:02 -0000

Devils bolster defence by recalling Peter Harrold from Albany - The Hockey News
The New Jersey Devils have recalled defenceman Peter Harrold from Albany of the AHL. Devils chief executive Lou Lamoriello announced the move on Monday, a day after defenceman Anton Volchenkov missed a game against Pittsburgh with a lower body injury. Harrold has appeared in five games with New Jersey this season.

Every team needs a couple of these guys.

Logjam Monday: Good, Bad, Points-Blown

Quisp — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 17:16:16 -0000

Good: CHI, PHX and ANA lost. (The Ducks are out, but a loss for them is always worth celebrating.)

Bad: n/a

Tonight: LAK/VAN (Go Kings), DAL/CGY (Go Stars), COL/SJS (Go Sharks).

Points-Blown Standings after the jump:

Some observations:

4/5th of the Pacific is separated by one (official) point.
However, PHX, which has played two more games than everyone else, is 4 blown-points behind Dallas, and 3 behind LA and San Jose.
Although the chart shows 93 points to be the presumed magic number, I'm thinking about bumping it up to 94. If you want no margin for error, assume 95.
If the Kings beat Vancouver tonight, they win the season series. This has no impact on any playoff matchups, since the Canucks have so many more ROWs.
As hard as it is to root for the Sharks and Stars tonight, losses for the Flames and Avalanche would be devastating for those teams.
And I don't really have a preference as to first round opponent,. Only that we have one.

Q	NHL		W/L/OTL	PTS	W%	PRJ	to 93	PB	8th+/-	ROW	ROW+-	GD	GP	SS	SSGR
1	1	STL	47-20-9	103	0.6776	111.1	n/a	49	15	43	13	49	76	LAK	0
2	2	VAN	45-21-9	99	0.6600	108.2	n/a	51	13	38	8	42	75	1	1
3	4	DET	45-25-5	95	0.6333	103.9	n/a	55	9	38	8	45	75	DET	0
4	5	NAS	44-24-8	96	0.6316	103.6	n/a	56	8	40	10	20	76	2	1
5	6	CHI	42-25-8	92	0.6133	100.6	0-6-1	58	6	37	7	10	75	LAK	0
6	3	DAL	41-29-5	87	0.5800	95.1	3-4-0	63	1	34	4	0	75	LAK	0
7	8	LAK	37-26-12	86	0.5733	94.0	3-3-1	64	0	31	-	11	75	-	-
8	9	SJS	38-27-10	86	0.5733	94.0	3-3-1	64	0	30	0	10	75	1	2
9	7	PHX	37-27-13	87	0.5649	92.6	3-1-1	67	-3	31	1	-2	77	tie	0
10	10	COL	40-31-6	86	0.5584	91.6	4-1-0	68	-4	31	1	-2	77	COL	1
11	11	CGY	34-27-15	83	0.5461	89.6	5-1-0	69	-5	31	1	-22	76	-1	1
12	12	ANA	32-32-11	75	0.5000	82.0	n/a	75	-11	29	-1	-21	75	LAK	0
13	13	MIN	31-33-10	72	0.4865	79.8	n/a	76	-12	23	-7	-48	74	2	1
14	14	EDM	31-36-9	71	0.4671	76.6	n/a	81	-17	26	-4	-17	76	-3	2
15	15	CBJ	24-43-7	55	0.3716	60.9	n/a	93	-29	20	-10	-68	74	tie	0

KEY:

Q = my standings, default sorted by points-blown (explanation of points-blown here).
NHL = the official standings, via NHL.COM.
PRJ = projected point total for 82 games.
TO 93 = the record needed to get to the presumed (by me) playoff-threshold.
PB = points-blown.
8th+/- = the distance in points-blown above or below the 8th seed.
ROW = regulation plus OT (but not SO) wins. The first tie-breaker.
GD = goal-differential.
GP = games-played.
SS = season series, the Kings' point differential against the opponent in question.
SSGR = games remaining against that opponent.
Click on the headers to sort.

Yes, the Kings are in 3rd, THREE POINTS OUT OF 11TH!

Quisp — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 06:15:27 -0000

Not to be a Negative Nancy or anything.

GOOD: LAK won, COL lost (Kings are now even with the Avs in ROWs), CGY half-lost, DAL lost.
BAD: LAK won in shoot-out (we need ROWs), SJS won, PHX won, CGY half-won.
TOMORROW: nothing.
SATURDAY: BOS/LAK (Go Kings!), VAN/COL (Go Canucks!), PHX/SJS, CGY/DAL (Go regulation!).
SUNDAY: NAS/CHI (Go Preds!), STL/PHX (Go Blues!).

Western Logjam: tonight's games

Quisp — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 19:55:05 -0000

LAK/STL (go Kings!)
BOS/SJS (go Bruins!)
COL/PHX (go regulation!)
VAN/DAL (go Canucks!)
CGY/MIN (go Wild!)

Three points separate six teams. And Chicago, eight points ahead of the Kings, have played two more games, so they're not out of reach either. Or safe. In fact, any ~~three~~ 4 of the seven (LAK, DAL, SJS, COL, CGY, PHX and CHI) could make it, and any ~~four~~ 3 could not.

From here on out, of those seven, anyone who gets hot, is in. Period. (And anyone who plays .500 or worse -- except Chicago, who has more wiggle room -- is almost certainly toast.)

Kings Since Deadline: 2nd in goals per game, 3rd best record in NHL

Quisp — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 08:04:16 -0000

Columns are sortable. GDG = goal-differential per game.

	GP	REC	GF	GA	W%	GPG	GAA	GDG
PIT	10	9-0-1	41	21	0.950	4.10	2.10	2.00
CHI	10	8-1-1	34	24	0.850	3.40	2.40	1.00
LAK	10	8-2-0	38	23	0.800	3.80	2.30	1.50
STL	10	7-2-1	28	16	0.750	2.80	1.60	1.20
DAL	10	7-2-1	28	24	0.750	2.80	2.40	0.40
BUF	11	7-2-2	33	27	0.727	3.00	2.45	0.55
PHI	12	8-3-1	29	19	0.708	2.42	1.58	0.83
CGY	11	6-2-3	32	28	0.682	2.91	2.55	0.36
FLA	11	7-3-1	29	29	0.682	2.64	2.64	0.00
COL	11	7-3-1	28	23	0.682	2.55	2.09	0.45
CAR	11	6-3-2	32	30	0.636	2.91	2.73	0.18
NJD	12	7-4-1	29	21	0.625	2.42	1.75	0.67
WAS	11	6-4-1	29	32	0.591	2.64	2.91	-0.27
NAS	10	5-4-1	31	31	0.550	3.10	3.10	0.00
MTL	10	4-3-3	28	28	0.550	2.80	2.80	0.00
WPG	8	4-4-0	30	25	0.500	3.75	3.13	0.63
NYI	11	4-4-3	28	34	0.500	2.55	3.09	-0.55
NYR	12	5-5-2	30	36	0.500	2.50	3.00	-0.50
OTT	10	4-4-2	23	22	0.500	2.30	2.20	0.10
PHX	12	4-5-3	30	37	0.458	2.50	3.08	-0.58
SJS	12	4-5-3	22	32	0.458	1.83	2.67	-0.83
EDM	11	4-5-2	29	32	0.455	2.64	2.91	-0.27
CBJ	11	5-6-0	23	29	0.455	2.09	2.64	-0.55
TBL	10	4-5-1	28	35	0.450	2.80	3.50	-0.70
BOS	12	5-7-0	36	39	0.417	3.00	3.25	-0.25
ANA	11	4-6-1	24	28	0.409	2.18	2.55	-0.36
VAN	9	3-5-1	20	28	0.389	2.22	3.11	-0.89
DET	10	3-6-1	27	30	0.350	2.70	3.00	-0.30
TOR	12	3-8-1	26	42	0.292	2.17	3.50	-1.33
MIN	10	2-7-1	16	36	0.250	1.60	3.60	-2.00

Monday Logjam: Points Blown

Quisp — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:17:22 -0000

Here's this week's games for the logjammed teams. Four of the seven will make the playoffs. Opponents in parentheses are outside the logjam.

	PTS	ROW	MON	TUES	WED	THUR	SAT	SUN
CHI	88	35		(CBJ)	(VAN)			(NAS)
DAL	83	33		PHX		(VAN)	CGY
PHX	83	30		DAL		COL	SJS	(STL)
COL	83	30		CGY		PHX	(VAN)
LAK	82	30		SJS		(STL)	(BOS)
SJS	82	29	(ANA)	LAK		(BOS)	PHX
CGY	81	31		COL		(MIN)	DAL

And here are the points-blown standings:

Q	NHL		W/L/OTL	PTS	W%	PRJ	to 93	PB	8th+/-	ROW	ROW+-	GD	GP	SS	SSGR
1	1	STL	46-19-8	100	0.6849	112.3	n/a	46	16	42	12	47	73	2	1
2	2	VAN	43-20-8	94	0.6620	108.6	n/a	48	14	36	6	43	71	1	1
3	5	NAS	42-22-8	92	0.6389	104.8	0-9-1	52	10	38	8	20	72	LAK	0
4	4	DET	44-24-4	92	0.6389	104.8	1-9-0	52	10	37	7	47	72	DET	0
5	6	CHI	40-25-8	88	0.6027	98.8	2-6-1	58	4	35	5	10	73	LAK	0
6	9	SJS	36-25-10	82	0.5775	94.7	5-5-1	60	2	29	-1	13	71	-1	3
7	3	DAL	39-28-5	83	0.5764	94.5	5-5-0	61	1	33	3	-3	72	LAK	0
8	10	LAK	35-25-12	82	0.5694	93.4	5-4-1	62	0	30	-	9	72	-	-
9	7	PHX	36-26-11	83	0.5685	93.2	4-3-2	63	-1	30	0	3	73	tie	0
10	8	COL	39-30-5	83	0.5608	92.0	4-2-2	65	-3	30	0	-1	74	COL	1
11	11	CGY	34-26-13	81	0.5548	91.0	6-2-1	65	-3	31	1	-17	73	-1	1
12	13	MIN	29-32-10	68	0.4789	78.5	n/a	74	-12	22	-8	-46	71	2	1
13	12	ANA	30-32-11	71	0.4863	79.8	n/a	75	-13	27	-3	-23	73	LAK	0
14	14	EDM	28-36-8	64	0.4444	72.9	n/a	80	-18	24	-6	-23	72	-3	2
15	15	CBJ	23-42-7	53	0.3681	60.4	n/a	91	-29	19	-11	-65	72	tie	0

KEY:

Q = my standings, default sorted by points-blown (explanation of points-blown here).
NHL = the official standings, via NHL.COM.
PRJ = projected point total for 82 games.
TO 93 = the record needed to get to the presumed (by me) playoff-threshold.
PB = points-blown.
8th+/- = the distance in points-blown above or below the 8th seed.
ROW = regulation plus OT (but not SO) wins. The first tie-breaker.
ROW+- = the difference between the Kings' ROW and that team's.
GD = goal-differential.
GP = games-played.
SS = season series, the Kings' point differential against the opponent in question.
SSGR = games remaining against that opponent.
Click on the headers to sort.

Some observations:

The chances of 93 points being good enough to make the playoffs are about 50:50, but I'm keeping 93 as the so-called presumed threshold because the figure is bouncing around wildly (between 93 and 95) day to day.
After San Jose's game tonight, they will have played the same number of games as the Kings.
SJS and LAK have games in hand on the rest of the log-jam.
SJS and LAK are doing better than the official standings indicate.
COL, PHX and (especially) DAL are doing worse
The Kings are in good shape re ROWs against all the log-jammers except Calgary (one behind) and Dallas (three behind). Well, they're five behind Chicago, but I don't think we're catching them anyway.
The odds of ROWs deciding who makes it and who doesn't are pretty good, I think.
Not as easy week for any of those teams.

Yes, the CBA allows Radulov to return to the NHL without clearing waivers

Quisp — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 14:47:11 -0000

The league and the NHLPA have agreed that Alexander Radulov will be allowed to return to the Predators without clearing waivers. Is this the right call according to the CBA, or is it a violation of the CBA which the league and union are ignoring for some nefarious reason?

The argument that Radulov is required to clear waivers is simple: the CBA requires that all players who start the season in Europe must clear waivers before returning to the NHL during that same season.

The argument that Radulov is waiver-exempt goes like this: when Radulov bolted for the KHL, in 2008, he had played two years and 145 games of the three-year entry-level contract he signed in 2006, when he was 20 years old. Players who sign their first contract at 20 have three years or 160 games of waiver-exemption. For 20 year olds, NHL and AHL games count against the 160. Radulov played 11 AHL games in 2006. Therefore, had Radulov stayed in the NHL, his waiver-exemption would have extended through the first 4 games of the next season.

GMs (and fans) who believe Radulov ought to be required to clear waivers are arguing that it's been six years since he signed that contract, so his waiver-exemption expired three years ago.

Undoubtedly, David Poile's argument is that, since Radulov was not loaned to the KHL, since he was "AWOL", the clock on Radulov's three years of exemption stopped as soon as he stopped honoring his contract. No one has questioned whether or not Nashville retains Radulov's rights. Well, part of those rights is Nashville's right to exercise Radulov's waiver-exemption. The whole point of the exemption is that it's in everyone's best interests that teams be allowed to freely develop their prospects (by allowing them to play at the level that is most appropriate for their development) without having to worry about losing those players to the competition. Nashville's contract with Radulov owes the Predators another 4 games or one full season (whichever comes first) of waiver-exemption.

It occurs to me that, as irritated as some GMs are reported to be by this development, I'm sure those same GMs will be happy to know that -- if there were to be a work-stoppage in our future -- the waiver-exemptions of their own prized prospects will be intact whenever the league gets around to playing again. And I'm guessing the league has an interest in working with the KHL to smooth out Radulov's KHL contract issues (should he return to Russia), just in case the NHL might need the cooperation of the KHL in the near future regarding the comings and goings of players prevented from playing in the NHL due to a work-stoppage.

"Duck Season - Fire!": Points Blown Standings

Quisp — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 19:32:50 -0000

KEY:

Q = my standings, default sorted by points-blown (explanation of points-blown here).
NHL = the official standings, via NHL.COM.
PRJ = projected point total for 82 games.
TO 93 = the record needed to get to the presumed (by me) playoff-threshold.
PB = points-blown.
8th+/- = the distance in points-blown above or below the 8th seed.
ROW = regulation plus OT (but not SO) wins. The first tie-breaker.
ROW+- = the difference between that team's ROW and the Kings'.
GD = goal-differential.
GP = games-played.
SS = season series, the Kings' point differential against the opponent in question.
SSGR = games remaining against that opponent.
Click on the headers to sort.

Q	NHL		W/L/OTL	PTS	W%	PRJ	to 93	PB	8th+/-	ROW	ROW+-	GD	GP	SS	SSGR
1	1	STL	45-19-8	98	0.6806	111.6	n/a	46	16	41	12	45	72	2	1
2	2	VAN	42-20-8	92	0.6571	107.8	0-11-1	48	14	35	6	42	70	1	1
3	5	NAS	41-21-8	90	0.6429	105.4	1-10-1	50	12	37	8	20	70	2	1
4	4	DET	44-24-3	91	0.6408	105.1	1-10-0	51	11	37	8	48	71	DET	0
5	6	CHI	39-25-8	86	0.5972	97.9	3-6-1	58	4	34	5	7	72	LAK	0
6	9	SJS	35-25-10	80	0.5714	93.7	6-5-1	60	2	28	-1	12	70	-1	3
7	3	DAL	39-28-5	83	0.5764	94.5	5-5-0	61	1	33	4	-3	72	LAK	0
8	10	LAK	34-25-12	80	0.5634	92.4	6-4-1	62	0	29	-	7	71	-	-
9	7	PHX	35-26-11	81	0.5625	92.3	5-3-2	63	-1	30	1	2	72	tie	0
10	11	CGY	34-26-12	80	0.5556	91.1	6-3-1	64	-2	31	2	-16	72	-1	1
11	8	COL	38-30-5	81	0.5548	91.0	5-2-2	65	-3	29	0	-3	73	COL	1
12	13	MIN	29-31-10	68	0.4857	79.7	n/a	72	-10	22	-7	-44	70	2	1
13	12	ANA	30-31-11	71	0.4931	80.9	n/a	73	-11	27	-2	-21	72	LAK	0
14	14	EDM	28-36-7	63	0.4437	72.8	n/a	79	-17	24	-5	-22	71	-3	2
15	15	CBJ	22-41-7	51	0.3643	59.7	n/a	89	-27	19	-10	-65	70	tie	0

Western Logjam: Glass Half Empty, Glass Half Full

Quisp — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 17:19:30 -0000

Glass Half Empty:

Sharks won.
Flames won.
Kings are in 11th, behind everyone else with a prayer to make the post-season.

Glass Half Full:

Coyotes lost to Flames.
Sharks won in a shoot-out, so they didn't pick up any ROWs.
Avs half-lost.
The Kings have games in hand on everyone.
In points-blown (see below), the Kings are tied with Calgary and ahead of Colorado and Phoenix.
Despite the ecstasy of the TV pundits, Colorado is not in a great place. They've played two or three more games than several of the teams in the logjam.
With a win tonight, the Kings can make it impossible for the Ducks to reach 93 points.

Tonight:

LAK/ANA, CHI/DAL (go Hawks, go regulation), CGY/EDM (go Oil, if Flames win, let it be in a SO).

Points-Blown Standings after the jump:

Q	NHL		W/L/OTL	PTS	W%	PRJ	to 93	PB	8th+/-	ROW	GD	GP	SS	SSGR
1	1	STL	45-18-8	98	0.6901	113.2	n/a	44	18	41	47	71	2	1
2	2	VAN	42-20-8	92	0.6571	107.8	0-11-1	48	14	35	42	70	1	1
3	5	NAS	41-21-8	90	0.6429	105.4	2-10-0	50	12	37	21	70	2	1
4	4	DET	44-24-3	91	0.6408	105.1	1-10-0	51	11	37	48	71	DET	0
5	6	CHI	38-25-8	84	0.5915	97.0	4-6-1	58	4	33	4	71	LAK	0
6	3	DAL	39-27-5	83	0.5845	95.9	5-6-0	59	3	33	0	71	LAK	0
7	9	SJS	35-25-10	80	0.5714	93.7	7-5-0	60	2	28	11	70	-1	3
8	10	CGY	34-25-12	80	0.5634	92.4	6-4-1	62	0	31	-14	71	-1	1
9	11	LAK	33-25-12	78	0.5571	91.4	7-4-1	62	0	28	5	70	-	-
10	7	PHX	35-26-11	81	0.5625	92.3	6-3-1	63	-1	30	2	72	tie	0
11	8	COL	38-30-5	81	0.5548	91.0	6-2-1	65	-3	29	-3	73	COL	1
12	12	ANA	30-30-11	71	0.5000	82.0	11-0-0	71	-9	27	-19	71	LAK	1
13	13	MIN	29-31-10	68	0.4857	79.7	n/a	72	-10	22	-44	70	2	1
14	14	EDM	27-36-7	61	0.4357	71.5	n/a	79	-17	23	-24	70	-3	2
15	15	CBJ	22-41-7	51	0.3643	59.7	n/a	89	-27	19	-65	70	tie	0

KEY:

Q = my standings, default sorted by points-blown (explanation of points-blown here).
NHL = the official standings, via NHL.COM.
PRJ = projected point total for 82 games.
TO 93 = the record needed to get to the presumed (by me) playoff-threshold.
PB = points-blown.
8th+/- = the distance in points-blown above or below the 8th seed.
ROW = regulation plus OT (but not SO) wins. The first tie-breaker.
GD = goal-differential.
GP = games-played.
SS = season series, the Kings' point differential against the opponent in question.
SSGR = games remaining against that opponent.
Click on the headers to sort.

How I Think This Will All Play Out

Quisp — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 17:40:47 -0000

Colorado Avalanche

Tough opponents: NJD, NYR, CGY, PHX, VAN, SJS, VAN, CGY, NAS

Less tough: CBJ

If they're lucky, they'll manage 3-3-3 out of the nine tough games, and 1-0 out of the easier game. That's 11 more points. They'll end up with 91.

Chicago Blackhawks

Tough: DAL, VAN, NAS, NJD, STL, NAS, DET.

Less tough: WAS, CBJ, MIN, MIN.

If they're lucky, they'll manage 4-2-1 out of the seven tough games, and 2-1-1 out of the easier ones. Fourteen more points. They'll end up with 98.

Dallas Stars

Tough: CHI, PHX, VAN, CGY, CGY, VAN, SJS, SJS, NAS, STL.

Less tough: EDM.

They've been on a tear, but they'll be lucky to get 10 points out of their ten tough games. Say they beat Edmonton. That's 12 more points. Bringing them to 95.

Phoenix Coyotes

Tough: CGY, DAL, COL, SJS, NAS, SJS, ANA, STL.

Less tough: EDM, CBJ, MIN.

I feel like the Coyotes will fare well in these games. I think they'll manage 12 points out of the tough games (5-2-1?), and 4 out of the less tough ones. That's 16 more points. 97 total.

Calgary Flames

Tough: PHX, COL, DAL, DAL, LAK, COL, VAN, VAN, ANA.

Less tough: EDM, CBJ, MIN.

The Flames play a lot of games against teams in the log-jam. They're playing well, but I doubt they'll get more than nine points out of the nine tough games. Okay, maybe 11 points. Plus 4 from the easier games. That puts them at 93.

San Jose Sharks

Tough: NAS, DET, ANA, LAK, BOS, PHX, COL, ANA, PHX, DAL, DAL, LAK, LAK.

Less tough:

San Jose is not playing well and all of their games are tough. I would be shocked if they got even half the possible points out of those games. I'm thinking more like 11 or 12. 5-6-2? Something like that. 90 points, finally.

They're screwed, I think.

Los Angeles Kings

Tough: ANA, NAS, SJS, STL, BOS, VAN, CGY, SJS, SJS.

Less tough: EDM, MIN, EDM.

I'm think they'll get 12 points out of the 9 tough games, but let's be more conservative and say 9 points. And 4 points out of the easier games. 13 points? 91 in total?

Final Logjam Standings (Kings get 13 points):

1. St. Louis
2. Vancouver
3. Phoenix 97 (wins Pacific)
4/5. Detroit/Nashville
6. Chicago 98
7. Dallas 95
8. Calgary 93
9. Colorado 91
10. Los Angeles 91
11. San Jose 90

Final Logjam Standings (Kings get 16 points)

1. St. Louis
2. Vancouver
3. Phoenix 97 (wins Pacific)
4/5. Detroit/Nashville
6. Chicago 98
7. Dallas 95
8. Los Angeles 94
9. Calgary 93
10. Colorado 91
11. San Jose 90

If

If the Kings end up tied with Calgary, it's not good. The Flames have two more ROWs than the Kings. The Kings have to hope the Flames start winning in SOs. The Kings have to beat Calgary in their remaining game (which means the Kings would win the season series). Otherwise, I don't think 93 points will be good enough for LA.

However

However, if you look at Calgary's schedule: the weekend before the final weekend, the Flames have back-to-backs against the Avs and Canucks. Then they have four days with no hockey -- Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday -- in which they get to sit at home and watch everyone else pass them by. Then they finish the season with Vancouver and, on the afternoon of the last day of the season: Anaheim. A pissed off Anaheim that will not have gone 12-0 to finish the season so they won't be in the playoffs.

That night, the very last game of the entire NHL schedule, is LA at San Jose.

My point is

One way to look at the Kings' chances is: you have to be optimistic to think they'll get to 94 points, so it's reasonable to think they won't make it. But if you're Calgary, you'd better get your points before the last week, because if you need to win most of those games against Colorado, Vancouver, Vancouver and Anaheim, you're in trouble.

Bottom line

It will probably come down to the last day of the season, with Calgary needing to beat Anaheim, and the Kings needing to beat the Sharks. Maybe the Sharks can get in if they win that game. Either way, it's going to be close.

(I also think Phoenix and Dallas will be deciding who wins the Pacific on the last day, but really who cares?)

I do think the Kings will get to 94. But I'm ~~a homer~~ optimistic by nature. So factor that in.

Fun with graphs: how our logs got jammed

Quisp — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:01:53 -0000

This graph shows the W% of each of our fellow logjammers (LAK, CHI, CGY, PHX, COL, SJS, DAL) after each of their first 70-71 games. I cut the graph off at .400 (floor) and .700 (ceiling) so that we could get a closer look at the middle range, which is where all the lines converge. if you click on the image you will get a higher-res version. Also, it's helpful to know that a .561 average projects to 92 points, and .579 projects to 95 points.

Photofinish in the West

Quisp — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 19:04:02 -0000

I'm away from my spreadsheets today but I wanted to get the conversation going regarding the Kings' playoff chances and the general playoff picture in the West. Bullets:

The Kings are in 11th place in the official standings. Oh no!
I have them in 9th in terms of blown-points.
The Kings have two games in hand on Colorado.
The Avalanche are ahead of the Kings in the standings, but behind them in W%.
The Kings have one game in hand on Phoenix and Chicago.
San Jose has a game in hand on the Kings.
Dallas, Phoenix, Colorado, Chicago, Los Angeles, Calgary and San Jose are separated by five points.
Four of those seven teams will make the playoffs.
It's starting to look like it will take 94 points to make the playoffs, not 93. At least, it takes 94 points for the Kings to make the playoffs 90+% of the time in sportsclubstat's 10,000,000 simulations.
Anaheim and Minnesota are done. Unless you think they will not lose a game the rest of the season. Ha ha ha.
Of the seven teams, everyone but Chicago and Dallas has 26-29 ROWs (regulation or OT wins). The Kings will not catch Chicago or Dallas in ROWs, but need to catch the others, since ROWs are the first tie-breaker and it's very likely the Kings will end up tied with someone.
Sadly, the Kings won the season series against both Chicago and Dallas. It's sad because season series is the second tie-breaker, and the Kings lose the first tie-breaker (ROWs) against both those teams.
The Kings won the SS against PHX, and lost to COL. So the Kings can afford to tie PHX in ROWs, but must beat COL in ROWs (since they will lose the SS tie-breaker to COL if it gets that far).
The Kings are currently two ROWs behind both those teams.
Tonight's games, in addition to LAK/DET, include DAL/MIN (go Wild), STL/CHI (go Blues), SJS/CGY (go regulation).
Tomorrow's schedule has COL/BUF, DAL/WPG, PHX/VAN (and DET/ANA, but the Ducks are done).
The Red Wings, Canucks, Blues, Predators, Oilers, Blue Jackets and Wild are our friends now. Except when we play them obviously. The Ducks are also probably our friends, but they can never be our friends.
Put together a little streak here and the Kings could be 3rd in the conference by Saturday night.

Fun with graphs: goals-for and goals-against

Quisp — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 22:34:50 -0000

The Kings have scored 18 goals in the five games since Jack Johnson departed and Jeff Carter arrived. I wondered if that's the most the Kings have scored over any five game period this season. It is. You can probably guess where ont he graph Darryl Sutter was hired and where Carter came on board.

If I didn't already think Bruce Boudreau was a really good coach I would think he was dumb

Quisp — Sun, 04 Mar 2012 19:06:07 -0000

Bruce Boudreau rips referees - Ducks blog : The Orange County Register

"Some of the worst calls I’ve seen in a friggin’ long time," he said. "A game of this importance, we can’t have officiating making calls like that. I mean, there’s three penalties that weren’t penalties." Boudreau was upset at a first-period slashing call on Luca Sbisa and two second-period calls — tripping on Niklas Hagman and interference on Nick Bonino. He said all three "were not penalties. Not even close."

The Sbisa slash on Jeff Carter that prevented a goal? The ref had a couple of slashes to pick from on that play (and a hook too; SEE PICTURE ABOVE). And the Hagman collision with Scuderi while the Ducks were on attack? I would have called it interference, but either way. Lots of tripping penalties are accidental or even incidental. "I didn't mean to knock down the defenseman to create an out-numbered attack" is not really an excuse.

The Bonino penalty on Clifford, I'll give you that one. It looked like incidental contact to me.

I understand that Bruce is really just sending a message to his team that he's putting the blame for the loss elsewhere, but please. I'm curious (and this is a serious question) if any Ducks fans (other than "Haysie") actually think those first two shouldn't have been called.

Points-Blown Standings: March Madness Edition

Quisp — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 21:55:30 -0000

Eighteen games to go.
It now looks like 93 points will be good enough to make it into the playoffs in the West. (At least, it's good enough in 90-95% of the sportsclubstats' 10,000,000 simulations.)
The Kings need a record of 11-6-1 to get there, which I continue to believe is doable.
If that seems like a tough road, it's pretty much the same one each of the nine teams (PHX, CHI, SJS, COL, LAK, CGY, ANA, MIN, DAL) must travel in the battle for the last four playoff spots.
Anaheim has the farthest to go, and the Kings can provide two of the 3.5 nails still needed for the Ducks' coffin (they need a 14-3-1 record to get to 93; and they also have to play DET, VAN, STL, SJS twice, NAS and PHX).
DAL, CGY, LAK and COL are clustered together with 2 official points separating them.
In points-blown, those four teams are joined by CHI on top and MIN on the bottom, with a spread of seven points-blown in all.
The Kings don't have much chance of catching CHI in ROWs (the first tie-breaker); the Hawks are 5 ROWs ahead. The Stars are four ahead. Everyone else in the cluster is within reach.
The Kings have beaten Dallas in the season series, lost to the Avs, tied Phoenix, and all the others (that could matter) are up for grabs.

KEY:

Q = my standings, default sorted by points-blown (explanation of points-blown here).
NHL = the official standings, via NHL.COM.
PRJ = projected point total for 82 games.
TO 93 = the record needed to get to the presumed (by me) playoff-threshold.
PB = points-blown.
8th+/- = the distance in points-blown above or below the 8th seed.
ROW = regulation plus OT (but not SO) wins. The first tie-breaker.
GD = goal-differential.
GP = games-played.
SS = season series, the Kings' point differential against the opponent in question.
SSGR = games remaining against that opponent.
Click on the headers to sort.

Q	NHL		W/L/OTL	PTS	W%	PRJ	to 93	PB	8th+/-	ROW	GD	GP	SS	SSGR
1	1	VAN	41-16-8	90	0.6923	113.5	1-15-1	40	17	34	50	65	1	1
2	2	DET	42-19-3	87	0.6797	111.5	2-14-2	41	16	35	51	64	-4	2
3	4	STL	40-18-7	87	0.6692	109.8	2-13-2	43	14	36	36	65	2	1
4	5	NAS	37-20-7	81	0.6328	103.8	5-11-2	47	10	34	16	64	0	2
5	3	PHX	33-22-9	75	0.5859	96.1	8-8-2	53	4	28	8	64	tie	0
6	7	SJS	33-23-7	73	0.5794	95.0	9-8-2	53	4	27	18	63	-1	3
7	6	CHI	34-24-7	75	0.5769	94.6	8-7-2	55	2	30	5	65	2	1
8	8	DAL	33-26-5	71	0.5547	91.0	10-6-2	57	0	29	-7	64	LAK	0
9	9	LAK	29-23-12	70	0.5469	89.7	11-6-1	58	-1	25	1	64	-	-
10	11	CGY	29-24-11	69	0.5391	88.4	11-5-2	59	-2	26	-20	64	-1	1
11	10	COL	33-28-4	70	0.5385	88.3	11-5-1	60	-3	26	-7	65	COL	1
12	12	MIN	28-26-10	66	0.5156	84.6	13-4-1	62	-5	22	-29	64	2	1
13	13	ANA	27-27-10	64	0.5000	82.0	14-3-1	64	-7	24	-19	64	2	2
14	14	EDM	25-32-6	56	0.4444	72.9	n/a	70	-13	22	-20	63	-3	2
15	15	CBJ	19-38-7	45	0.3516	57.7	n/a	83	-26	16	-64	64	2	1

Marcel Dionne threatens Kopitar with Sundinification

Quisp — Sat, 03 Mar 2012 00:22:07 -0000

MayorsManor.com - LA Kings Hockey Blog: Marcel Dionne - 'Kopitar needs to make a decision'

First up, here are some updated thoughts from Dionne on the Kings highest paid player...

"I think Kopitar's at the point in his career where he has to decide what he wants to do. Does he want to be the guy? If I was him, he should be looking at the situation and what's going with (Evgeni) Malkin. When (Sidney) Crosby was playing, Malkin was happy to be second fiddle. Then, when Crosby went out, Malkin took over. He wins games on his own. Kopi has to do that! You can't wait for wingers. You gotta make it happen. Some nights he's gotta be the guy. And if he's not, now it's getting to the point in his game where it's going to be tough to get up to the level he wants to be. Everbody knows him, everybody knows how he plays.

"He should be a little bit more - he reminds me a little bit of Mats Sundin. They're big guys, but when they get close to the net, they're not aggressive enough. They have to get these guys off their backs because they're big guys. If they're soft there, then you know what, those soft goals don't come.

"I still have confidence in him. But, sometimes, management are too nice to their stars. He needs a wake-up call."

Marc Crawford says the playoff threshold could be high 80s in the West

Quisp — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 20:21:23 -0000

Can that be? Let's look at the sportsclubstats numbers. Not the "chance of making the playoffs" numbers. The part where they show if point total x for each team is good enough to make the playoffs, expressed as a percentage. Generally, I use the 90% and 95% markers to determine what's very and extremely likely (respectively).

Here are the bubble teams and the points needed for each to exceed a 95% likelihood of making the playoffs.

Anaheim -- 95 points
Colorado -- 95 points
Calgary -- 95 points
Los Angeles -- 95 points
Dallas -- 94 points
San Jose -- 94 points
Chicago -- 94 points
Phoenix -- 94 points

And here are the odds of making the playoffs for each of those teams when finishing with 89 points:

Anaheim -- 9.7%
Colorado -- 10%
Calgary -- 13%
Los Angeles -- 9.3%
Dallas -- 19.9%
Chicago -- 24.5%
San Jose -- 15.9%
Phoenix -- 21.8%

Hm. I have to say, as stupid as Marc Crawford sometimes seems to be, I have to say those odds for Dallas, Chicago and Phoenix are higher than I expected. I wonder what accounts for that. (I hope I don't have to eat my hat)

Deadline Deal Alum Teddy Purcell is NHL's 2nd Star of the Week

Quisp — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 19:42:22 -0000

Tampa Bay Lightning's Teddy Purcell named NHL's second star of the week - Tampa Bay Times

SECOND STAR – TEDDY PURCELL, RW, TAMPA BAY LIGHTNING Purcell ranked second with 10 points (three goals, seven assists) and led all skaters with five power-play points (one goal, four assists) as the Lightning earned four out of a possible eight points to remain within six points of the final playoff spot in the Eastern Conference. He scored the winning goal and added two assists in a 3-2 victory against the Anaheim Ducks Feb. 21, recorded a goal and two assists in 4-3 loss at the Winnipeg Jets Feb. 23, scored Tampa Bay's lone goal in an 8-1 defeat against the Pittsburgh Penguins Feb. 25 and collected three assists in a 4-3 win at the New Jersey Devils Feb. 26. Purcell has 4-9—13 during a six-game point streak dating to Feb. 16 and 17-29—46 in 61 total games, putting him on pace to establish career highs in each category.

Dean Lombardi: did he break a promise to Jack Johnson by trading him?

Quisp — Sat, 25 Feb 2012 05:54:19 -0000

You’re Full Of Shit Mr. Lombardi " Surly & Scribe's L.A. Kings Hockey Blog

Matt Barry gave us a transcript of the Bill Waters & Jack Johnson interview today. There are two parts I wanted to dissect from the interview and then discuss: [bold and italics are from the Waters interview; the rest is Scribe]

BILL WATERS: "WHEN YOU SIGNED THE LONG TERM EXTENSION, DID YOU HAVE A FEEL THAT THEY WERE SAYING, "HEY JACK, YOU’RE GONNA BE HERE FOR THE LENGTH OF THIS CONTRACT. OR AT NO TIME DID YOU FEEL THERE WAS ANY LONGEVITY PROMISED WHEN YOU GAVE THEM THAT EXTENSION?"

JJ "That’s exactly what they said when the deal was done, that "you’re gonna be here for a long time." That was the intensions of both parties. We weren’t just signing it just to get it over with. We were doing it to agree to be together for a long time. That was the intension at the time." "I knew as the trade deadline got closer there was a lot of rumblings going on. No one said that "The rumors weren’t true" or anything from the Kings standpoint so I knew where there’s smoke, there’s usually fire."

BILL WATERS: "WHEN LOMBARDI TOLD YOU ABOUT THE DEAL, DID HE SAY "I’M SORRY ABOUT THE PROMISE I ALLUDED TO?"

JJ No. It was a very short, sweet conversation. It was, "We dealt you Columbus. Thanks. Bye." Pretty short and sweet. There was really nothing that needed to be said.

"But it’s a business" I can hear you say. Perhaps. But integrity transcends that.

"But things change." Then don’t make the promise if you know it is not an honest one.

I take people for what they do, not what they say. If a person tries to convince me that they are one of character, integrity, honesty and honor before all, okay, I look for evidence of that. Dean Lombardi tries real hard to convince the fans that he is a man of honor and integrity, that his frustrations with so many things relate to that lack of "loyalty" which he claims takes various forms including a tattoo on the ass. Well, Jack Johnson bit on the bullshit. He took the tattoo and entered into a long-term, cap friendly hit. He also worked damn hard to earn it and, from my perspective, he did. His reward? Being shipped out.

[...] If I am face to face with Dean and this topic comes up, I nicely tell him, "you can’t expect to maintain credibility when you talk about loyalty, respect and integrity and then do the very opposite with your actions. Why would any player sign a cap friendly contract with you as a GM unless they are foolish enough to not know your history?"

And for all the griping that we did about Drew Doughty and his agent Don Meehan, perhaps what we should say is "good for you, Drew" for having a good agent who knew exactly what Dean Lombardi is and taking the dollars so if you are ever shipped out, you know you have the consistent big paycheck – it is "just a business" after all, right? [...] You’re full of shit, Mr. Lombardi. Regardless of how this trade works out for us, it won’t change that salient fact.

I don't agree with most of this, and I will tell you why. But I do want to acknowledge that a lot of people appear to feel the way Bobby Scribe does here. And I will also say, as long as I am being sympathetic to this point of view which I don't share, that the whole "Kings tattoo" meme -- call it the Lament for the Loyalty of By-Gone Days -- is pretty much totally hollow and everyone involved knows it.

I believe Dean Lombardi has a sentimental fondness for a notion of "team" that either (a) existed some time in the past, but no longer, (b) never really existed in any kind of pure form, but we like to think it did, or (c) exists only in movies and stories. The rag-tag band of brothers who put aside their self-interest and become bigger than their individual selves en route to winning the Big Game. Maybe it's the world the way we wish it was. I know that I frequently lament the fact of (for example) free agency, with players happily pursuing the biggest paycheck possible with barely a thought about sticking with the team that drafted them. I was even put off by the whole (supposedly heart-warming) story of Ray Bourque getting trading to the Avs so he could have a chance to win the cup, as though he'd personally earned it by being individually great despite the fact that his team hadn't earned it. Did it really feel so good to win the cup with a team he wasn't actually really a part of, but for those few short weeks? I'm not even sure if all this is on-point or not; what I'm getting at: I share that sentimental view of the past, or of a past that may or may not have existed.

One of the reasons players were so loyal in the "good old days" is that they had no power. They were paid so little that they had jobs in the off-season to make ends meet. And in the pre-draft days of the Original Six, some of that (genuine) loyalty was borne of the fact that teams held the rights to all players who lived within a certain radius around the team's home; the Canadiens had a corner on the market of all the local kids, who of course were loyal to the Habs because they grew up Habs fans. So, there was loyalty to team because it was literally your home team, like your high school team.

Bottom line: I share what I believe to be Dean Lombardi's wistful view of the past, even though I also know that this past was really just the past as I understood it before I learned how fucked up everything really was for those players back in the good old days.

Another reason I am largely sympathetic to Dean Lombardi's team tattoo pitch, even though I know it's mostly hot air and isn't in any way reciprocal or contractually-binding:

I can add.

In the world of the salary cap, players who are predominantly out for the biggest paycheck no matter where it comes from are not problematic because they're self-absorbed primadonnas (presumably they're talented enough for everyone to look the other way); these guys and their salaries are a problem because you can't pay one player 20% of your entire payroll without it affecting your ability to surround that player with a supporting cast that will make winning possible.

You can either believe this or not. I believe it.

To the degree that it's all about the cap, Lombardi's pitch to players (to accept cap hits that make building the team possible) is entirely self-interested. But that's not only expected, it's good. Because Lombardi's self-interest and ours have this giant overlap:

We both want the Kings to win the Stanley Cup.

And the fact is, Lombardi's pitch to his players and to us, with the examples of Brown and Johnson making cap-friendly deals in order to make it possible to keep more pieces when the time comes (e.g. Doughty) or to add more and bigger pieces when the time comes (e.g. Carter, Richards, Scuderi, Mitchell, Gagne, even Penner, poor hapless millionaire that he is) has the virtue of being true. Add another million or half million or whatever to each of the contracts Lombardi has negotiated and suddenly it's not possible to add the pieces he's added. Presumably, this summer people are going to expect Lombardi to pursue Zach Parise or whomever, as he pursued Brad Richards, or Kovalchuk, or Hossa (we can talk in another post about why he generally hasn't been able to lure those people). The question of exactly how much cap room there is to pursue these people -- not to mention re-signing Jonathan Quick, or Slava Voynov, or pick your own favorite, when the time comes -- is a huge part of a GM's job. Aside from evaluating talent, managing development, and minding the cap, what else is there?

Now, back to the JJ interview and Bobby's comments:

JJ doesn't say that Lombardi promised him he wouldn't be traded. The interviewer seems to be trying to get him to say this, and Bobby reads JJ's response as affirming that. But, to my ears, all JJ says is, the intention of both parties at the time was that this was for the long haul...but it didn't work out that way.
Bobby says that "integrity transcends" the fact that "this is a business." First of all, it's manifestly and obviously a business. And Dean Lombardi's job is to build the Kings into a winner so that he, his players, his coaches, his staff, and AEG, can all be bigger, greater, richer, more successful and just generally happier. And so we, the fans, will be happier, and in our happiness we will spend more money on Kings' stuff. And also because it's more fun to be a winner than a loser. That's the business. The winning business.
What role does "integrity" play in that business, or in any human interaction? Aside from the general platitude that people with integrity are "good" and people without it are on a slippery slope to "bad", there's this: lack of integrity -- in the absence of absolute power -- is bad for business. Lombardi can't do his job -- the job of getting the Cup -- if no-one wants to do business with him.
There are several groups of interested parties involved here. There's the players, the other GMs, the fans, and AEG. I think we can take the GMs and owners off the table, since the kind of lack of integrity Bobby is talking about here -- the implied contract on a par with "no, you don't look fat in that dress" -- would not be seen by those groups in a negative light. It's just what you say according to the contract-signing etiquette book.
I've signed lots of contracts, and people always say words to the effect of "you're going to be here for a long time." "This is the start of a beautiful friendship." It's not a contractually binding promise of any ****ing kind. It's a platitude. They never say, "of course you realize, we've already started ****ing you over", or "really we'll trade you the first chance we get to upgrade." They never say it.
The gist of what Waters is trying to get Johnson to say, and what Bobby is reading into it, is: "Dean Lombardi promised not to trade me, but he lied! HE LIED!" I'm sorry, but that's just disingenuous. A promise not to trade a player is called a NO TRADE CLAUSE. If you don't have it, you don't have it, you don't have it (you don't have it). Jack Johnson did not rely on Dean Lombardi's "you're going to be here for a long time" as if it were a guarantee of any kind. Nor did anybody else.
The whole reason Dean Lombardi doesn't give no-trade/no-move clauses is so that he has flexibility in managing his roster, SO THAT HE CAN TRADE PLAYERS.
Visnovsky was here when Lombardi went out and got Johnson. Those two could have been the cornerstones of the franchise. Except it didn't work out that way. JJ was, perhaps, slow to develop; Lubo had a bad season; the Kings found themselves in a position to draft Drew Doughty. Suddenly, Lubo was expendable. Lombardi traded Visnovsky and handed the keys to Doughty and Johnson. That was a decision that had huge impact on those two players' development. Even if Lombardi hadn't traded Lubo then, he would have had to make a choice between Lubo and JJ by the time JJ signed his contract last year. And then he would have had to make another choice, between JJ and Voynov. Like he just did.
As soon as Voynov started to look ready, it was a known fact that one of Voynov, JJ or Doughty was going to be traded. We talked about this frequently on this blog.
Just like the emergence of Alec Martinez means that a choice will be made between Martinez and Thomas Hickey.
And in two years, Nicolas Deslauriers (a faster and possibly even nastier JJ 2.0) will be ready, hopefully. And it's not likely that we'll have Doughty, Voynov, Martickey AND Deslauriers for very long.
That's how it goes. There has to (always, always) be a steady stream of prospects coming "ripe" in time to take the place of players who are getting their big contracts. Otherwise the whole cap model falls apart.
Why do you think Lombardi is holding onto Jonathan Bernier until Quick's next deal is done (next season some time, we hope)?
If Lombardi wasn't arranging his assets like a laddered portfolio of bonds, with a few coming due every year, he wouldn't be doing his job. He would be building a time-bomb.
Many GMs don't mind the time-bomb approach. Because they know that they will likely be long gone by the time the bomb goes off, so what's the difference?
Lombardi is (perhaps stubbornly?) attached to his long view, his famous charts and boxes. This is another reason I like him. He's like a fan in this regard, making his little rosters, mapping out the team this year, next year, the year after. I do that too. I do it with Excel. He does it with a $60MM budget.
Adhering to a long-term plan, despite the fact that he might not even have a job after this summer...that's another definition of "integrity".

Kings have 10 goals in the last six games and Andrei Loktionov has three of them

Quisp — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:55:27 -0000

So obviously the sensible thing to do is send him to f***ing Manchester.

Dustin Brown and Justin Williams each have 2 goals, Drew Doughty, Jordan Nolan and Dwight Kings each have one. One of Williams' goals was an empty net. Kopitar, Richards, Penner, Stoll...zero goals.

Today's scandalous topic: what do you want for Dustin Brown?

Quisp — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:35:54 -0000

I know I've been critical of Dustin Brown. Let me just clarify that I think DB is a great player with a great contract, and he's someone who I think is ideally suited to being a team's third or fourth fiddle, not the team leader or the marquee star, but the affable fan favorite with the peerless work ethic, pumpkin grin and, when removed just slightly from the limelight, a reliable and sometimes highlight-reel goal-scorer. Not to mention the bone-crushing body-checks and the community service. Also, when my eight-year-old learned that Brown could be traded, he cried himself to sleep, but not before coming into my room about ten times with alternate trade candidates (my favorite being, Kevin Westgarth and Scott Parse for Patrick Marleau -- whom he calls Marloo because "he's French"). He also would like to trade from the man he used to call "Umberto La Gwango", but that's another post.

Forget for a few minutes whether anything I say about Brown is correct or utter bullshit. The question for this post is, if Dustin Brown were to be traded in the next three days, what would you want the return to be?

Here are the teams with "high levels of interest" in Dustin Brown | ProHockeyTalk

This morning on Twitter, TSN’s Bob McKenzie shared the teams that are supposedly interested in acquiring the services of Dustin Brown, the Kings’ captain who’s all of a sudden available prior to Monday’s trade deadline.

[the tweet names BOS, BUF, NYR, NJD, TOR, EDM, PHI and VAN.]

It’s an interesting mix of contenders, up-and-comers, and Buffalo. Given all Brown brings to the table – toughness, goal-scoring and a manageable cap hit – he makes sense for all of those teams to pursue. The question is, what does Kings GM Dean Lombardi want in return? Via Pierre LeBrun: One source told ESPN.com that the Kings would like to get defenseman Luke Schenn and highly touted forward prospect Matt Frattin from the Leafs in a Brown deal.

My sense is that Toronto would find that price too rich, but GM Brian Burke — who had Brown on Team USA in 2010 — really loves Brown.

So, putting all our feelings about Brown aside (and I, at this point, would like to see what happens with Jeff Carter added to the top-six with Kopitar, Brown, Williams, Richards...and King? Nolan?), what would you want in return from those teams?

Kings trade Jack Johnson, Wayne Simmonds, Brayden Schenn and a 1st for Mike Richards and Jeff Carter

Quisp — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 06:21:00 -0000

As much as I like Wayne Simmonds, Brayden Schenn and Jack Johnson, how can you not make that trade? And, if you look at today's deal and last summer's deal as one protracted mega-blockbuster, who in the world thought a year ago that the Kings could pry Mike Richards or Jeff Carter from the Flyers, to say nothing of BOTH OF THEM?

I love Wayne Simmonds. I was mocked going back two or three years for suggesting that Simmonds could turn into a 30 goal-scorer. I am thrilled for him that he's getting his time to shine in Philly. But, unless you think Lombardi was going to move Justin Williams or Dustin Brown to make room for Wayne, he just wasn't ever going to get the kind of ice-time he's getting in Philly now.

Brayden Schenn. He's awesome. But he's a kid. And he's a center. Maybe in five years Kopitar/Schenn/Loktionov down the middle would be better than Kopitar/Richards/Loktionov. But in the mean time, we've got five years of Mike Richards and at that point Richards will be only 31 and is still likely to be pretty f-ing good.

My Twitter feed has exploded with tweets from (seemingly quite young) women wanting to spit on Dean Lombardi and/or are threatening to "bandwagon" some other team because how how HOW could the Kings trade Jack Johnson. One tweet was upset that Lombardi dealt JJ instead of Drew Doughty. The consensus seems to be that JJ had a Kings tattoo on his ass (at Lombardi's request) and that trading him is a kind of betrayal.

The fact is, as I have pointed out many, many times over the last year or so: Drew Doughty, Jack Johnson, Alec Martinez, Slava Voynov, Thomas Hickey and Nicolas Deslauriers are all offensive-minded, mobile, speedy, mid-sized d-men with varying degrees of edge (Doughty, Johnson and Deslauriers being on the nastier side) and varying degrees of defensive ability (Johnson and Deslauriers being a little less responsible than the others). Deslauriers is the youngest and the farthest away (and also the most like JJ, in my opinion). Hickey appears (again, to me) to be finally coming around. But the others, Doughty, Johnson, Voynov and Martinez, are good to go now -- and going forward there really isn't room for all of them. Just as Doughty made Lubomir Visnovsky expendable, so the rise of Voynov made JJ expendable. There is a lot to love about Jack Johnson. And I went to Michigan, so I do feel bad about him having to play in Columbus. But this bridge was going to have to be crossed at some point, and a choice was going to have to be made. One of Doughty, Johnson and Voynov was going to have to go, just as one of Martinez and Hickey will have to go at some future point.

Moving JJ now is just good management. I don't really believe Dean Lombardi when he suggests that this trade is one he was (in type) looking to do anyway, as he knew the Kings were still a player away. I'm quite sure that if Penner had 20 goals and Gagne wasn't injured, if the Kings weren't currently on pace to be one of the worst offensive teams in the last half-century, JJ would still be a King. So (I am looking at you, Twitter contingent) if you're looking for someone to blame for Jack's departure, look no further than the forwards who were/are supposed to be putting the puck in the net.

I had the pleasure of listening to Craig Button (or as I will now consider calling him, Moron Craig Button) weigh in on the trade on NHL On the Fly (or whatever it's called now). He actually said that the Kings don't have enough good defensemen and this is their actual real problem. They traded Visnovsky, and now Johnson. What is Lombardi thinking?

Lombardi is thinking: Voynov was my best defenseman in many games this season. He has the same skill-set as Johnson, only he's slightly less mean and slightly more fast (and he's $4MM cheaper, and he's better defensively).

And this Jeff Carter fellow? He's a sniper. He averages .392 goals per game. (Kopitar averages .341.) Carter has taken 1790 shots since 2005, 3.58 per game, 500 games. (Kopitar takes 2.85 shots per game, 1294 shots in 454 games). No, I'm not saying Carter is better than Kopitar. I'm just saying he shoots more and scores more.

And even if he is a bad person or a pulsating dickhead, I don't think I really care. I am reminded of this quote from Mark Yannetti, the Director of Amateur Scouting for the Los Angeles Kings:

Quote of the Day: "Many things that make you a fierce competitor and a winner are not the traits of a good citizen." - Jewels From The Crown

QUESTION: [Beyond] viewing and judging talent [...] what [do] scouts do that people may not realize?:

[YANNETTI:] Judging character…and not just the good old all-american boy whom you’d want your daughter to marry. Many times the things that make you a fierce competitor, single-minded and, especially, a winner, are not the traits of a good citizen. [...S]ome of the players I’d want in the playoffs would not pass people’s or society's test. it's all about figuring out which flaws can be overcome and which cannot be overcome – and which you can live with.

So, yesterday, the Kings had JJ. Tomorrow, they will have Voynov and Carter. Is that better? Um, yes it is.

Jeff, welcome to LA -- clean slate; we don't believe any of that idle gossip; please fill net

Quisp — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 01:39:10 -0000

Discuss Jeff Carter here.

Jack, I will miss you, and I'm sorry you got traded to Ohio State

Quisp — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 01:34:43 -0000

Discuss Jack Johnson here.

Post-Game Bullets: and the game isn't even over yet

Quisp — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 04:07:09 -0000

I'm going to go out on a limb and call this game. Avalanche wins.
I would like to pretend I'm cleverly trying to fake out the hockey gods by "walking out" early. But no. I am certain the Kings will lose this game. (Kings, feel free to come back and make me look stupid.)
How am I so sure? I'm sure because the Kings are playing like they not only have already lost the game, but have already failed to make the playoffs.
Brian Engblom just used the word "deflated." Yeah.
Mike Milbury was hilarious on the topic of Dustin Penner vs. Jeff Carter (short version: "no character", though Carter isn't as bad as Penner).
I have complained in the past (in the Murray era) that one problem with trying to win every game 2-1 (or 1-0) is that if you find yourself down by 3, it's over.
But this is more than that. This feels to me like the four or five games before Murray was fired. The team knows (or believes) that something bad is about to happen, and is just waiting. Waiting.
I may be going too far with this, but I genuinely feel the Kings are playing like they're depressed.
Probably one prerequisite when you spend to the limit of the salary cap should be that you pay for leadership that -- when it's time for clutch -- doesn't just look sad or lost.
I would like to not believe this, but since I've been saying in so many words for about three years now: I think Anze Kopitar is an excellent #2 center getting paid to be a #1 center; and Dustin Brown is either a hit-and-miss top-six winger, or the best third line RW in hockey. He's not a consistent top-six player. He doesn't have chemistry with either Kopitar or Mike Richards, and that's built into the job description, since Richards and Kopitar are not (likely to be) going anywhere.
And neither of these guys should ever have been captains. Look, it was a nice experiment. It would have been great if it worked for Brown the way it worked for Crosby or Toews. But it hasn't. In each of the last three years. The Kings need leaders who know how to win, which means, for one thing, having had the experience of winning, having won. The Kings, under these guys, haven't learned to win. What they've learned to do, whether it's playoff collapses in consecutive seasons, or season-crushing losing streaks, is exactly what they're doing right now.
Oh, the game is over.

Trade Deadline Conversation Starters

Quisp — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 22:00:44 -0000

These are just ideas. I've been thinking a lot about what I would actually do if I were actually in a position to do anything, and it occurred to me to share the process (it is a blog, after all), not just the conclusion, if I ever reach one. So I've been batting these scenarios around.

Dustin Brown and Jack Johnson for Alex Ovechkin -- a sexier, splashier trade-deadline move there could not be. It would be a trade on a par with the Gretzky deal, or so it could be made to appear to the media frenzy that would no doubt descend on the Kings were Lombardi able to pull this off. Why it could happen: Ovechkin is perceived to be "in decline" (at least by the numbers) the last couple of seasons; the contract, with its $9.5MM cap hit for another nine years, is thought by some to be untradeable and an albatross around the neck of the Caps; the Caps are (like the Kings) in danger of actually missing the playoffs, and a reboot is not out of the question. Why it won't happen: the Caps aren't going to trade one of the biggest marquee attractions in hockey; Lombardi won't saddle the Kings with a $9.5MM 35-year old 20 goal scoring Ovechkin, and all the declining years in between. Why I would want it: solves that left wing sniper problem. Why I wouldn't: same reason I didn't want that Ilya Kovalchuk contract; it would burden (and define) the team for the next decade; fear that his "rock star" self-image would grow to monstrous Galactus-like proportions when exposed to the Hollywood sign. Also, what number would he wear?
Brown and Johnson for Jason Pominville and Drew Stafford and (something else...Buffalo's 1st?) -- Why it could happen: Buffalo overspent and will miss the playoffs; they overpaid these two guys; the Sabres media are talking about starting fresh; Dustin Brown is from NY; Pominville and Stafford are exactly the kinds of second or third tier scorers Kings fans probably fear are coming this week, while everyone is talking Nash, Carter, etc.. Why it won't happen: the Buffalo contracts aren't as cap-friendly as the ones Lombardi negotiated for Brown and Johnson. Why I would want it: two guys who can score more or less like Dustin Brown, instead of just one; we can spare Johnson for the right deal. Why I wouldn't: I don't think it's the right deal. Brown and Johnson are two of the Kings' most attractive tradeable assets, especially in terms of perception of non-Kings fans vs (what I perceive to be) reality. I wouldn't want to waste those coupons on a mediocre, or even fair, return. Because I think they can be used to rip someone off. :)
Jonathan Bernier and Dustin Penner for Jeff Carter -- Why it could happen: Columbus wants to get rid of this guy; his stock is at a career low; they need a goalie; his contract expires next century, which makes it possible for a team to get him for less; he is, after all, an (until recently) injured Flyer. Why it won't happen: Lombardi doesn't like 24 hour party people; he does like his goaltending tandem; Penner will be a tough pill to swallow (though the Kings would need to move salary to make the deal work). Why I would want it: scoring. Why I wouldn't: what if his stock isn't at a career low? Also, I like Bernier a lot.
Johnson for Dany Heatley -- Why it could happen: slumping Wild; Johnson is sorta from Minnesota (played at Shattuck-St. Mary's). Why it won't happen: Lombardi doesn't like people of bad character. Why I would want it: scoring. Why I wouldn't: Heatley may be evil. Not really. But seriously. No, just kidding. Also, Jack's just entering his prime.
Johnson, Bernier, (Andrei Loktionov, Tyler Toffoli) and a 1st for Rick Nash -- Why it could happen: I don't know, because everyone seems to be talking about it? Why it won't happen: the price is too high. Why I would want it: I wouldn't. Why I wouldn't: Loktionov and Toffoli.
Brown and Johnson for Nash -- why it could happen: I don't know, maybe it couldn't. Maybe it would just piss everyone off in two towns. Why it won't happen: price not high enough for Columbus. Why I would want it: Johnson is expendable, in theory, so the deal comes down to a strategic upgrade from Brown to Nash; get to keep Loktionov, Toffoli, Bernier. Why I wouldn't: I would be sad to see Brown and Johnson play for someone else.
a pick and a prospect for Ales Hemsky? That's another deal I can imagine, and imagine being annoyed with.

Anyway, I'm still arguing with myself about these ideas and others. So feel free to join in.

		28-Mar	29-Mar	30-Mar	31-Mar	2-Apr	3-Apr	5-Apr	6-Apr	7-Apr
SJS	88	ANA	PHX		DAL		DAL	LAK		LAK
DAL	87	EDM		VAN	SJS		SJS	NAS		STL
PHX	87		SJS		ANA		CBJ		STL	MIN
COL	86	VAN		CGY				CBJ		NAS
LAK	86	CGY		EDM	MIN	EDM		SJS		SJS
CGY	85	LAK		COL	VAN			VAN		ANA

		28-Mar	29-Mar	30-Mar	31-Mar	2-Apr	3-Apr	5-Apr	6-Apr	7-Apr
SJS	88	ANA	PHX		DAL		DAL	LAK		LAK
DAL	87	EDM		VAN	SJS		SJS	NAS		STL
PHX	87		SJS		ANA		CBJ		STL	MIN
COL	86	VAN		CGY				CBJ		NAS
LAK	86	CGY		EDM	MIN	EDM		SJS		SJS
CGY	85	LAK		COL	VAN			VAN		ANA

		28-Mar	29-Mar	30-Mar	31-Mar	2-Apr	3-Apr	5-Apr	6-Apr	7-Apr
SJS	88	ANA	PHX		DAL		DAL	LAK		LAK
DAL	87	EDM		VAN	SJS		SJS	NAS		STL
PHX	87		SJS		ANA		CBJ		STL	MIN
COL	86	VAN		CGY				CBJ		NAS
LAK	86	CGY		EDM	MIN	EDM		SJS		SJS
CGY	85	LAK		COL	VAN			VAN		ANA