Keep the questions coming, either in the original post or this one, but I’ll start with the first round of questions and answers. Sometimes I get wistful for the days when all the questions were about the Kings trading for Andrew Raycroft. Memories…
———-
Question: Why is Calder on the 1st line? Kings obviously need a finisher for Brown-Kopitar. Why won’t they give Moller, Frolov or maybe even Purcell a look on the top line…? When will Westgarth take over with Ivanans?
Answer: I can’t say I understand the tendency to keep going back to Calder in that first-line left-wing role. It makes total sense to establish some offensive depth, and not put all your eggs in the first-line basket, but that argument goes out the window when the first line isn’t producing. In the next year or two, that’s a spot that will likely be filled by a major free-agent/trade acquisition. It might not happen this season, but it might happen next summer. As Terry Murray said yesterday, there’s no “ideal” player for that spot. The Kings once believed Purcell had the potential to fill that spot, but it seems that they might have overrated his potential just a bit, as the reviews of his game during training camp, and early in the AHL season, were not strong. Ivanans is under contract through the 2009-10 season, so it seems logical that if Westgarth continues to improve, he could fill that role then, if not next season.
—–
Question: What do you think about bring Avery back and sending Simmonds down.Simmonds hasn’t done much and with the addition of Avery he could show everybody how to do some push ups.
Answer: Yes, then the Kings should also bring back Jeremy Roenick, Marty McSorley’s curved stick and Roman Cechmanek.
—–
Question: I’d like to get your opinion on what you think needs to be tweaked or changed in order to get the PP more productive. It seems to me that a lot of the Kings play on the PP is on the perimeter, with very little player movement and too much holding onto the puck. Also, I’ve noticed this year more than anytime in the past, the Kings have an inordinate amount of their shots missing the net completely, which I feel is another part of the PP problem, and just a problem in general. Lastly, I’d like your opinion on the enforcer role in today’s NHL. As competitive as it is in the league, I don’t think a team can afford to hold a roster spot for a player who’s sole benefit is to intimidate as it was in the past. That position,to me, needs to have a player who can also produce in some other way,either defensively or offensively. With that said, do the Kings have anyone else in the pipeline who can fill that void?
Answer: From a very basic and simplistic analysis, it seems that more pucks need to get to the net. Terry Murray has pointed it out in the recent past, and Derek Armstrong said it yesterday. The game is now played in that area right in front of the net. Rebounds, deflections, tipped shots, etc. Positioning and puck movement are important, but there’s a lot to be said for just getting the puck on the net and trying to create something. If you’re struggling on the power play, that’s always a good place to start. The trend toward the enforcer who can do more than “enforce” is something that has taken hold since the lockout. It’s why a guy such as George Parros got a chance in the NHL, for one. The Kings believed Ivanans could be that type of player, but he looks more like one of the one-dimensional players of the past. I haven’t seen enough of Kevin Westgarth to make a call on him, but based on training camp, it would seem he has the potential to be more versatile in that role.
—–
Question: 1) Why Ivanans has been getting dressed regularly even when facing teams without enforcers (i.e. Wings). Wouldn’t Boyle’s size and skill be enough to have him in the lineup instead? Ivanans has been a big liability lately getting almost all of his PIM with the gloves on… 2) Boyle is just about the only guy who did not get to play with Kopitar and Brown. Yes, I know he’s not a winger, but given their struggles and the constant line carousel, why not give it a shot, particularly on PP? Have to second that Calder comment above (or more like 2,002nd, lol).
Answer: Coaches have different philosophies about the need for an “enforcer” in the lineup. Terry Murray has clearly showed that he values having one. Boyle’s size and skill would be enough, if he had the sort of intensity and toughness that the Kings are looking for. In their eyes, he’s not even close right now. Ivanans’ increasing tendency to take bad penalties is a big problem though, for certain. 2) It puzzles me a bit as to why so many people want to throw Boyle into a top-six role when he hasn’t yet proved he can handle a top-12 role. Look at Patrick O’Sullivan. He got sent to Manchester in 2007-08 because he wasn’t playing enough of a two-way game. Then he started last season on the third line and didn’t get first-line minutes until he earned them, by playing a gritty game and quality penalty-kill minutes. If you’re trying to build a team the right way, rewarding players before they earn a reward is not the way to go. Are they being too harsh on Boyle? Hard to say.
—–
Question: You responded to someone’s question after 11 games that it was premature to declare Richardson a waste of a 2nd round pick then. What’s your take now?
Answer: Still hard to say. He has played four consecutive games now, so he’s finally getting a chance. There’s definitely some speed there and some defensive potential. A third-line role, going forward, certainly isn’t out of the question. Beyond that, what do you consider a “waste” of a second-round pick? Some second-round picks pan out quite nicely (Moller and Simmonds, at least at the moment) and some never even sniff the NHL. So it’s a bit difficult to quantify if you don’t have anything to compare him to.
—–
Question: Why was the Kings best scorer, Frolov benched after ONE mistake in a close game? Have you ever seen a professional coach stupid enough to bench their leading scorer in such a close game, while other mistakes this season by Gauthier, Brown, Ivanans, Doughty, Kopitar, etc. go completely unpunished? With that benching of Frolov, Murray made it clear that teaching Frolov a lesson was MORE IMPORTANT than trying to win the game. Why is teaching a lesson more important than winning a game?
Answer: Saying Frolov got benched for one mistake is comparable to saying Sean Avery got suspended for making one comment. In both cases, there’s a “body of work” situation involved. The knock on Frolov, from time to time, has been his defensive lapses, and this one just happened at a very noticeable and costly time. Why is teaching a lesson more important than winning a game? If you’re a first-year coach of a team that is learning how to win, there’s nothing more important than teaching lessons. You want your players to play the right way in the long term. Was there a better way to handle that particular situation? Perhaps. It’s a fair question.
—–
Question: Has TM or anyone else commented on the PK seemingly being in a free fall after such an amazing start?
Answer: It’s something that has fallen through the cracks a bit, because there have been a lot of other areas/topics to talk about recently, but it’s definitely worth addressing in the next few days. There have been breakdowns that didn’t happen early in the season, and there has also been an increase in “bad” and untimely penalties.
—–
Question: Any buzz about Purcell maybe being called up soon?
Answer: Not particularly, but given a) the Kings’ offensive struggles of late and b) Purcell’s recent scoring surge, it’s definitely not out of the question. The question would be, has Purcell resolved the issues, whatever they were, that got him sent to the AHL in the first place? Scoring has never really been the issue holding him back.
