The Wild West

Hard to say Rich. I actually think there will be less action because there will be no sellers. Only the bottom 4 or 5 in the East will be selling. Unless some of them make some drastic moves I don't see a whole lot of movement. The salary cap also limits what you can bring in and what you can ship out.

The Kings can make moves for big salaries but how much of the future would they have to give up. I think for now they should stand pat. The future is very bright and we are getting a huge glimpse of that right now.

I love this team, and I want them to win every night. But I also want a run like the Red Wings and Devils, not just a peek like Edmonton, Ottawa and maybe Pittsburgh had.

Go Kings!!!

103 - 64 - 18

That's the West's record vs. the East at this moment.

It's a shame that some good teams in the dominant Western Conference will not make the play offs when crummy overated Eastern conference teams will make the playoffs.

They should consider giving the West's 9th seed a play off spot in the eastern conference at the expense of the East's 8th seed.

They should do that in years when one conference is utterly dominant against the other in head to head play.

It appears that the season is basically over if you are not in the top 9 by the start of Feb. You would think that a goalie might get hot or an important player may come back from being injuried to push a team into the playoffs once in a while. Thanks for the analysis Rich.

Good stuff Rich! Thank you for the comparisons. The thing that stands out for me is that the Kings are only four points of where they were on this date a year ago. Had they played a lot more games on Feb 8, 2008 than they have so far this year?

From the trend, it looks like the playoff team have already been determined. I would have that that a team who had a big time player come back from injury or a team who found a hot goalie would have made a late run to a playoof spot. Thanks for the analysis

Being only 4 points better then last year is kinda shocking I figured it was more, but then I remembered the LaBarabara factor (8-5-1) since hes been gone.

dmh012,

I think the movement Rich was referring to is more teams moving up and down in the standing this year compared to previous years not how many players will be traded and moved

dmh012 -

I agree it's hard to know how much movement there will be before the trade-deadline this year. But I'm not sure about the lack of sellers. Cap issues -- for teams near the ceiling -- may dictate moves that wouldn't happen otherwise. Several mediocre-to-bad teams have high payrolls (e.g. ANA, DAL, MIN, FLA, EDM, STL, OTT, COL, VAN -- all with cap hits above $53MM). Several others have important decisions to make. Detroit, for example: do they try to sign both Hossa and Franzen? If not, do they resign themselves to the risk of losing one as a UFA, or deal one now? (I think they would just let one go in the summer, but keep them now for the cup-run.) If they sign both, somebody is going to pick off Hudler with an offer-sheet, since the wings would have no room to match. The point is, they have to be careful. Also, they need a goalie, since Osgood is sucking.

Another example, OTT: they have to rebuild, and there's two ways to do it, trades and free-agency. But they can't even sign any UFAs without creating cap room first. So even rebuilding through free-agency means making trades. Same with bringing up prospects: they don't have the cap room, really, so they would have to waive veterans, or deal them.

It's no longer as simple as "if you have a shot at the playoffs, you are a buyer, and if you're out, you're a seller." There are numerous teams who have a shot at the playoffs and also have cap considerations (EDM, VAN, DAL, COL, MIN, STL, ANA, to name but seven of the Kings' competition). In that sense, everyone is a little bit like Detroit, one eye on the playoffs, and one eye on the off-season.

As far as the Kings go, I find it hard to believe DL will let the deadline pass without turning at least a couple of his pending UFAs (Calder, Armstrong, Gauthier, Ersberg) into picks or prospects. (Calder is playing so well right now, though, DL might just want to hang onto him.)

And everyone knows the Kings need a proven sniper, a top-line elite forward. if someone of that caliber becomes available, the Kings are just about the only team with the cap space to make such a trade without having to send salary back.

I'm guessing there will be lots of movement, but possibly not very much BIG movement. More head-scratchers and mid-range trades. But I hold out hope that DL can use his unique position this year to pull off something great for the franchise.

After 51 games, this year: 23-21-7, 53 pts. Last year: 20-29-2, 42 pts.

Thanks for tracking that down, Quisp! In that context, the Kings improvement thusfar is much more evident.

What stands out to me is that every year for the past 10 years, the Kings have either been on the edge of making/missing the playoffs or way on the outside looking in. Sad.

At this time last year, we had played nearly the MOST games, not the LEAST, as is currently the case. The Kings just might pull off this playoff run if they continue to play like they have been. I guess JMFJ coming back was the catalyst this team needed, hmm? Doughty and Johnson coming back in the same game (against Dallas I believe?). That hit on Doughty by Artyukhin (can't spell that) was the wake up call of the season. Here's to learning!

What does everyone thing here about a 'Wild-Card' system for the 7th & 8th seeds of both divisions? I agree that it sucks to see 4 west coast teams better than the 7th & 8th seeds of the East not make the playoffs. The 'Wild Card' system I have in mind would fix that:

Teams 1-6 from both Conferences are automatically in with the same rules applying regarding division leaders securing seeds 1-3.

Seeds 7 & 8 for both West & East conference are determined by record out of the 18 remaining teams. Whichever division has more points will determine the first 7th seed slotting. then the other 7th seed, first 8th seed, second 8th seed.

That insures the top 4 teams that are left get in as opposed to what we have now. I think you'd see a better set of playoffs and some opportunities for East vs West matchups BEFORE the cup final and even some potential same division final matchups. Purists might flinch, but I think it would make things more interesting in the earlier rounds and perhaps prolong more playoff matchups (which equals revenue...are you listening Gary?)

Opinions?

I've been saying this forever. It's all about parity, and this year it's with a capital P. On ANY given night, a crappy team can beat a good team, a road team can beat a home team, and a Hall Of Fame goalie can look like Barry Brust. It just happens. Enjoy it while it lasts...

Cynic

I have seen it in some smaller leagues and it works well. Travel is the problem though. Why should a first place team like Boston have to travel all the way out to LA or Anaheim in the first round. That would be punishment to them. I like it the way it is. It is not Florida's fault for the conference being weaker and they will make the playoffs. In the West if you want in, earn it.

I would like the NHL to go to 3pts for a regulation win though. Make each game worth the same amount of points, and reward teams for winning in regulation. I hate seeing the outcome of games like Edmonton and Minnesota today knowing we end up losing ground to two teams and three points were given. A good example is Edmonton last year they were deadly in shoot outs, but why should there wins be rewarded like that of Detroit who wins games outright. I believe if it was 3 for a win Edmonton would have barely finished above us instead of 8th.

Sorry about the rant

Go Kings!!!

What stands out to me is that in all of those 10 years the Kings were outside the top 8. It's tough to make the playoffs when you're never in the hunt.

Single points earned for an overtime or shootout loss should be eliminated.Of course this wouldn't bear well for a team like the Kings this year. But I believe it would give a truer placement of a team in the standings,and give the fans a better product to watch than the present set-up.Presently the set-up allows for non-conference teams playing one another to play for the tie,it behooves them both to play it"safe" late in a tied game. Ah, God just let the Kings in the playoffs and I promise I will be a better person !

I'm in total agreement with Cynic. I have been preaching for a few years that each game MUST be worth the same total number of points, and the obvious solution is to make regulation wins worth 3 points. It would make the end of the 3rd period that much more important, and make teams less inclined to play it safe with a 1-goal lead, as they now tend to since they have in the back of their minds they can end up with the same number of points even if they let in the tying goal, just by winning in OT/SO.

It's SO obvious, it will never be adopted.

As of now, the spread from #5 Dallas to #15 StL is nine points. StL is on pace to finish with 79 points (note that five eastern teams will be lower).

Closest race I've seen this late in the season since I started a standings spreadsheet in '87.

I think this would make hockey better:

Cut the game roster by 3 or 4 players and eliminate commercial timeouts to start. Then...,

Take the top 20 teams at the end of this season and create Premiere division.
Drop the remaining 10 teams into the 2nd division.
Place the top 10 teams from the AHL in the 2nd division, and the rest go to the 3rd, and so on until all professional teams are playing in a division of 20 teams (lowest divisions become regional for travel reasons).
Season is made up of 76 games with each team playing every other team two at home & two away.
At the end of the season, the top 3 teams from 2nd division are Promoted to the Premiere league, and bottom 3 from the Premiere league are Relegated to the 2nd division. And so on down the line of professional divisions.
Whoever has the most points at the end of the season is the Premiere League Champion of North America.
Top 8 teams make the Stanley Cup tournament.
Abolish the draft and change from a "trade" based system to a "buy and sell" based system with no salary cap.
Fighting is an automatic Game Misconduct, as is violent play or intent to injure.
Further develop the Champions League and other tournaments for cup tournaments between teams from different leagues like Russia, Sweden, Finland, etc...
Begin the move to larger ice-surfaces.

3 points for a win.
1 point for a draw.
0 points for loss.
No shootouts during the regular season.
Overtime only for Cup tournaments, not regular season.

PS - adopt the "hawk eye" system, currently used in tennis, to determine whether the puck crosses the goal line, or is deflected from above the cross-bar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawk-Eye

I think there's already a game like that.

Eat The Rich, Radical changes with a world soccer view.Games on bigger ice surface would bring lower scoring games and less contact.I like the NHL flavor.I also love the idea of redemption and vengeance factor that fighting brings.It keeps the assholes honest.Just think of the world order and chaos without Uncle Sams nukes.SCARY.

ETR,

I'm sorry because most of the posts you make I tend to agree with or at least respect as intelligent input but this is ridiculous. We already have soccer run pretty much the exact way you are suggesting and putting this into place for the NHL would be absurd. First off reducing the number of players for each team and cutting out timeouts for commercials creates a multitude of problems.
1)Players get tired because they are playing too many minutes.
2)Less timeouts=more tired players with less rest
3)No commercial timeouts means loss of profit for NHL because ads are where lots of money is at.

Moving teams up and down the divisions and having multiple champions or w/e would go against the history hockey has and create teams that are good based on market and money they throw at players. No draft simply reduces parity throughout the league as certain superteams will emerge that are dominant and have the money to throw at whoever they want.

Finally, while I know fighting is a controversial issue, I am against eliminating it. Reducing it possibly but getting rid of it altogether no. Going back to draws makes games less exciting. 3 points for a win and one for OT/SO loss and 2 for OT/SO win as bbb101 and cynic suggested I think would be better tho.

PS-implementing that hawkeye system would be good but i'm not so sure it would work as well for hockey as it does for tennis where everything is on the ground and easier to see where the ball hits. Also the shot spot for tennis is not perfectly accurate and at times the puck is hidden in the glove of the goaltender for example so while i would support this idea i doubt it would actually work

Respectfully,
GoKings09

No thanks, ETR. I mean, no offense because you love our great game and obviously put some time and thought into it, but there are sooo many financial and logistic reasons why those ideas are wrong for this sport and marketplace.

Mind you, keeping track of pucks in the crease isn't a bad idea. The hawk eye system would have limited application for precisely the reason that GoKings mentioned - smothered pucks. If the league really wanted to spend serious money on the issue, it could develop and implement an RFID-based approach, embedding a chip in the puck and having sensors in the crease (ice, goal posts & crossbar). The area is small enough to make it feasible.

ETR, no thank you. That would make sense in Europe, because that kind of stuff flies over there (i.e. ending the game in a tie, socialism, etc.). But my biggest fear is running a team without a salary cap because I'm sure AEG would fund the team on pennies while Detroit and the other big names spend hundreds of millions. Sure hockey could use a few minor changes, but if it ain't broke don't fix it.

It's a shame to see the Kings in the bottom half of all those standings. Hopefully things will change in the future. With 30 games to play, I see the Western Conference only getting crazier.

Rich- A nice bucket of cold water you just threw on my face. I was just starting to get playoff hopeful (again).

Eat:
Relegation adds an interesting element. But no way in the world does this ever happen. Ever. Did I say ever? EVER. But since you're in the realm of hypothetical, if it were to happen, everyone would put "opt out" clauses in their contracts so that if their team was relegated, they would be free agents of some kind. Also, relegated teams would get zero good free agents, making it that much harder for lower-end teams to turn the corner. Furthermore, much of hockey's economics is dependent on the size of the rink you play in. You need luxury boxes for revenue to pay players. How many minor league teams have such a rink? Hell, NHL teams can't stay in the NHL without a good arena. Lastly, from me, the smaller the market the smaller the TV revenues, so even if say, Manny Legacy's new team, Peoria, (and where in the world is Peoria? Illinois?) gets moved up, there's no way they can keep their good players. They just don't have the market. If Hartford can't support an NHL team, what makes you think Manchester could? It becomes a sideshow while the rich stay rich.

And how did we get into this discussion of changes in the NHL? We've got two days off Rich, do an open forum on what changes you want. Sure it's an old topic, still fun tho.

A few people have expressed shock at how many fewer points more the Kings have this season than last season as of this date, and have asked if they have played a lot fewer games so far. Yes, they have. Last season they Kings had played 56 games as of February 8 and this year they have played 51. Last year they did not get to the 53 points they have now until their 60th game on February 15th.

I do think this season will be different than recent years in terms of teams moving up and down. The Blues will have trouble making up the 5 points and the way the Coyotes have been playing they are going to be done soon if Gretzky can't find some way to right that ship. The Avalanche probably don't have what it takes to get into the playoffs either, and while I don't want to count the Predators out because they have proved naysayers wrong on so many occasions I think they are going to come up short this year. But then consider the Quacks. Everyone in the West has games in hand on them, and aside from the Blues, Yotes, and Avs, they all have enough games in hand that if they won them all they would pass Ana-slime. I'm not saying that all of the team chasing the Quacks will win all of their games, but the Quacks have not been good this season while the Kings and Blue Jackets have really been coming on strong of late. The Stars have already overtaken the Quacks and the Wild are likely to do so in the next couple of days. I don't know if the Canucks are going to get their act together- though a convincing victory over the Hawks on Saturday may be a sign of life in Vancouver- but I would say that the spots currently occupied by Anaheim and Vancouver are the two most likely to be nabbed. I'd like to see Los Angeles and Columbus grab those.

All I know is that as a Kings fan it has been several years since I have been paying attention to the playoff chase this late in the season, but I have a very good feeling that whether they make it this year or not, by next February we should not be worrying about whether they will get in or not, but rather whether they will get home ice advantage or not. It sure is an exciting time to be a Kings fan!

Marty.

I respect your opinion, but

1 - the olympics are some of the best hockey, IMO, and they're on full size ice. The players are too big and fast for the game on the current size rink. It's nothing like the original "pond hockey" from which the game was born - Although I can't say I was there to see it. But, to me the game looks like its taking place in a bathtub at times.

2. Does Fighting in the game REALLY scare the bad guys? The dirtiest plays of the past few years have been perpetrated by guys like Pronger & Simon (stomping), Matt Johnson (suckerpunch in the back of Beuk's head), McSorley (swinging the stick, even though I don't believe he meant to hit the head), and Bertuzzi (who's not a goon, but is a giant).
Also, you may remember that Chris Neil pounding that he gave to Mikko Eloranta a few years back. Totally disgraceful, in my book, and then Adam Mair gets suspended 14 games for coming off the bench to his teamates rescue. Atrocious.

3. The "beautiful" state of the world balancing on the tip of a Nuke is all relative to where you're viewing the world from. Plus, I thought conventional warfare was a thing of the past, but look at us now.

To the anonymous post above Marty's...there ARE other games like that, but not inside the borders of North America. Soccer AND basketball are both played like this around the world in one form or another, and they're highly lucrative, while the NHL is going bankrupt.

GoKings'09,

Thanks for discussing this respectfully. That goes for everyone. I appreciate just getting to give my opinions and I can see your side(s) to these ideas. I'd also like to respectfully point out some fallacies (i think) in your arguments:

First, the roster cuts and ban on commercial timeouts --
Well, I just don't think this makes any sense.
- Our 4th line sometimes plays less than 3 minutes a night.
- I know it's not the NHL, but I've played 60 straight minutes and loved it.
- Soccer, the bane of America, is a game where 8 of the 11 players RUN for 90 minutes.
- Dirk Kuyt of Liverpool was tracked as covering about 8 miles of ground during a game in the Champions League last year.
- Plus, they don't have commercial timeouts in the playoffs and its much, much better for the flow of the game. How many times have you seen a team take charge of a games momentum, only to have 3 or 4 minutes of commercial timeouts disrupt the natural "flow" of the game.
- Soccer has 45 minutes of commercial-less action, with a 15 minute half-time. They seem to be rolling in loot. Besides, I think commercials benefit the local broadcasters more than the NHL - which makes it's money off of marketing gear, wall-clock, and tickets...

Promotion and Relegation goes against the history of Hockey...

- Well, again, this just rings a little hollow.
- Do you realize the NHL used to have a ban on the forward pass?
- That they used to play 50 games in a regular season?
- That they didn't have "commercial timeouts" or game rosters of 20 or more?
- That there used to be 8 victories required to win the Stanley Cup?
- You say "parity" like its a good thing. I think parity is awful.
- Parity is equivalent to Handicapping, IMO. Everyone loves a good Dynasty. It's good for the game. There are fans of Manchester United all over the world. Millions of them - literally. That's where the money is at.

I have no problem with rational opposition to a ban on fighting, but I think that pro-fighting people forget that harsher penalties won't eliminate fighting. Don Sanderson, the kid who died in Dec., was playing in a league (OHA) that ejects players for fighting. Game misconducts for fighting and violent play will just mean that an individual player will have to consider whether the penalty is worth the fight.

I also think the opinion on Draws/Ties is subjective.
In a league where the games are everything (where the league winner is crowned Champion), draws can be INCREDIBLY exciting. Think back to some of Labs overtime losses and consider how unfair and down right hokey the shootout is...
A lesser team works like hell for 60 minutes to tie the game with a good team, but loses in a shootout? Pretty boring to me. I'm big on the SIZE of the game and think there is honor in working for a draw, especially when a team is up against it in the standings.

You've got me on the Hawk eye system. I had been under the impression they did use sensors as well as cameras. I think a sensor system must be "doable." I'd love to bury the controversy of not knowing where the puck is when its in the glove, or beneath a mass of humanity.

Thanks again for having the discussion with me. I like to put these ideas out there. I think it's possible that big changes could make the game much better, but I recognize how radical it appears.
I often hear that argument about not fixing things that aren't broken, but I think that's a naive stance. I think the NHL IS broken and that it's in danger of going through a horrible time soon. Nobody is making money and the players are GROSSLY overpaid.

I may be wrong but I think the current League is unsustainable.
I also believe it could be way better.

Sorry if I put anyone to sleep or bored them to tears...

The Kings have 31 games left:

20 of them are on the road

5 are back to back

5 are 3 games in 4 nights

28 of them are against teams 500 or better

The Kings HAVE proven they can win on the road BUT you cannot expect them to keep up THIS pace for the next 60 days.

They have to make up 3 games, which means they have to play 3 games over 500, which CAN be done, but personally, because I've been right so far the past 4 or 5 seasons and will keep the string alive THIS season....

.... the Kings will find SOME way to screw it up and MISS the playoffs.

I love this discussion. Interesting ideas fro sure. I can't take credit for what Dmh012 said though, and I totally agree that making a reg win 3 points is an OBVIOUS solution to the extra point issue. Needs to be done.

It still doesn't solve bad teams making it into the playoff race when good teams in a tougher divison have more points but don;t make it (IMHO).

DMH012 brings up a good point about travel, but I don't see a problem with it. If you don't want to travel, win more games. If I'm a team that has the choice of being in 9th place in my division with a winning record or being an 8th seed as a wild card in the other division, get me a boatload of dramamine 'cuz I'm in the playoffs. Travel doesn't mean a whole lot if you're getting to play for The Cup when you normally would be out.

I think a wild card system would force mediocre teams to play like playoff teams earlier in the season, making season games more exciting much earlier than normal. The stretch run for some bubble teams would start in December instead of February. Games would become more important much earlier in the season which should translate into more exciting games.

The more I think about this, the more it makes sense from a level of fairness and promotion potential for the game. Just another opinion I guess..

The scary thing here is that if the Kings had lost just 2 more of the last 7 games, instead of being 6-1 they would be 4-3...still a winning record, but they would be DEAD LAST.

I start to wonder what this season would have been like had JMFJ not been hurt and Labs been traded earlier...we might have those extra points and be in the playoffs. Let's hope they can keep up this winning attitude and record. I, for one, am hopeful, but then again I'm a Kings fan, so I'm always hopeful until my hopes and dreams are crushed.

Above "anonymous" post was me.
Got JDM'ed (loggedout) I guess. Sorry.

Gordon. The NHL is broke. Just like North America.

BBTSJ - No offense, but you sound like you believe the current NHL works.
Look at all the empty buildings, teams in financial meltdown, and dwindling marketability of the game.
Right now its a matter of the Rich controlling everything. And I'm not just talking about the owners.
The current NHL payroll, even if you lowballed the average number at $50 million per team, shows that the NHL teams are paying over a Billion and a half dollars in salary to the players on those payrolls.
I don't even think this takes into consideration all the prospects they're also paying.
That is insane.
Raitas Ivanans, no offense, is making 3 times what men who've spent lifetimes giving to their employer make in a year, and he averages probably less than 6 minutes a game.
Sure, small market team couldn't support what's currently going on. Not even the NHL teams can support it.
And as far as all the players leaving relegated team, sure some would be bought by team remaining in the top division, but many of them will be dropping into the division in which they belong. The top teams would have no interest in average players from relegated teams - just like in the English Premiership.

I admit, the odds of these ideas ever, EVER, ever being implemented aren't even on the board, but, heck...I can dream, can't I?

Oh yeah.

Gordon. It's interesting to me that you consider the NHL non-socialist.
1 - they have a salary cap.
2 - they have revenue sharing.
3 - they reward the least competent team with access to the best rated player, regardless of what the player wants, or where they want to go.
4 - they have a league with closed borders where only a member of the "corporation" can participate and play for the Stanley Cup. Unlike the original "Challenge Cup" nature of the Stanley Cup. Look up the Stanley Cup on Wikipedia and check out it's history. The NHL doesn't even really own the Cup, its the property of a board of Trustees. They simply negotiated with the NHL and gave them stewardship - which the WHA apparently challenged in the late 70's.
5 - The NHL is under no financial burden to pay the Junior teams and colleges that develop the players.

Sounds more socialist than the "Survival of the Fittest" sports leagues of Europe.

Anyway, again, I realize it's just my opinion. I totally understand being content with the game the way it is.

Cheers lads...

Apologies for the sheer volume of space I took up...

I just wanted to put in my 2 cents as to the 3-point game because that was an idea I had the day the NHL announced it was going to give a point to OT losers because it never made any sense to me. Where does that 3rd point come from? In the old days every game was worth two points, if you won you got them both and if you tied you split them. So how does a third point work?

Anyway, last season I actually went through every team's results since the lockout to see if 3-point games would actually made any impact on the standings, and of course you have to assume that the results would have played out the same and that teams would not have altered their playing strategies any but what I found was pretty striking. I can't find the final standings I made for last season but the only difference from 2005-06 and 2006-07 in the playoff teams was the 2006 Edmonton Oilers. You may recall that the 2006 Oilers played an absurd 26 playoff games (going 13-13 in them) and snuck into the playoffs as the 8th seed before going all the way to the 7th game of the Stanley Cup Finals. Well if regulation wins were worth 3 points that, all team's overtime wins would have cost them that amazing run because they would have finished in 11th behind the Canucks, Kings, and Wild and been out of the playoffs entirely.

So while I still think it makes more sense for regulation wins to be worth 3 points if a point is going to be awarded to overtime losers, I don't know if it's necessary since it wouldn't really make a difference for the most part and the one time it would have done so, the Oilers pulled off one of the great playoff runs in recent memory.

I'll have to put together standings for last year and up to now this season and see if things would look any different.

But I'm curious what people think of the 3-point game knowing what its impact would have been in the post-lockout era. I should note that I chose to look only at the post-lockout years because that is when the shootout was instituted, but maybe it's worth looking back at every season since overtime losses were introduced.

Not related to this thread, but I just heard about this. For anyone who has XM radio or the NHL Network, Bob Miller & Jim Fox will be in studio guests on this morning's NHL Live show. The program airs both on XM and the NHL Network at Noon Eastern (9am Pacific). On the NHL Network it's replayed again at 5pm Eastern (2pm Pacific).

First of all, I say, "Thank God this is not soccer!" Those ideas will never, never, happen in the NHL. But, I have long thought the "bonus" point thing for losing in overtime is ugly. I get that they want to have resolved games rather than ties. Every game should be worth the same number of points. The shootout was fun the first season or two. But, that has now lost some of it's luster too. I used to get very excited to see a penalty shot. When POS got that penalty shot it was nice, but i was not on the edge of my seat like I would have been 10 years ago. So, my vote is either to eliminate the shootout and go back to 2 pts a game or make a regulation win 3 pts.

in 2000 it was a 13 point difference and in '99 a 12 point difference, but this was also before the conference expanded to fifteen teams so you're right Rich, it has never been this close this late in the season. it's really crazy, but great for the fans of all teams involved.

great analysis, thanks for going back and looking all these up...

also, I disagree with jet (only slightly) that said you're out of it if you're not in the top 9 already. technically the Kings are not in the top 9 (10th) but they are only 4 points out with a game in hand. win an extra "4 point" game in regulation (game head-to-head vs. one of the top 9, which represents a 2 point swing either way, or 4 points) and they're right there.

sorry I should've said 3 points out (Vancouver & Edmonton have 56 now) - and they're currently "11th" if that even has the usual meaning right now.

also, 1 game in hand on Minnesota (7th) and Vancouver (8th) and 2 games in hand on Edmonton (9th) and Columbus (10th)

I think you all have converted me on the 3pt regulation win. It could also make the last two weeks of season a little more exciting.

Hey Rich,

I though you might like to see this if you haven't already. This was from spectorshockey.net. Think it'll help?

"LOS ANGELES DAILY NEWS: Rich Hammond denied all internet-based trade rumors regarding the LA Kings, claiming there’s nothing going on with the Kings on the trade front.

SPECTOR’S NOTE: Hammond is the best source regarding all things Kings, folks. Ignore any and all chatter from other sources, especially rumor blogs, on this matter. Hat tip to GJ Berg for the link."

http://www.spectorshockey.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=523:nhl-rumors--sunday-february-08-2009&catid=34:articles&Itemid=55

Thanks, Matt. I could see, from the influx of angry Ottawa fans below, that something had been posted somewhere.

The irony, of course, is that I didn't say that there's ``nothing going on with the Kings on the trade front.'' I said there's nothing to the Spezza thing. Oh well, I'm just not going to win this one.

Paul from Oxnard,

Thanks for the heads up! Maybe that show will hold my interest for more than a concious 5 minutes or an hour long nap...

EAT,

First, while funny, I guess I'd always hoped that JDM'ed had loftier meaning to it ;).

Second, I... second, gralx in saying "Thank God this isn't soccer." EAT, we've been through this since the beginning, and I loved reading your impassioned suggestions, but aside from them not being implemented in any alternate reality of foreseeable future for the NHL, I wouldn't want them put in either. No TV time outs is fun in playoff OT hockey, but that's part of what makes playoff OT hockey the best, its special like that. Also, commercial revenues are HUGE. The NHL tooks its big nose dive when ESPN dropped them. VS. isn't going to pay big bucks for games because the only ads they sell are for skeet shooting (exxaggerating), and the NHL Network only advertises themselves and 1-800 numbers for doorway workout devices.

I'm not saying I like it or I approve, but fact of the matter is that this country is run on ad dollars. From television to city streets and all the way into programs for elementary school musical shows. Sad, but true.

There was one point you brought up though that I'm all in favor of, and that is better regulating the numbers of times teams play each other. I'm all for a two at home, two on the road system so that each team plays eachother 4 times. The fact that the Kings have been to Washington only 7 times in the past 10 years I believe it is, is ludicrous.

Re: 3 point regulation wins:

I love that idea. Totally agree that if they are going to award an OT loss point, and maintain the shootout, that this only makes sense. Every game should be worth a certain number of points going into the game, and those points should all be divided up and handed out based on the outcome.

However, while I enjoy the shootout, they are fun and exciting, and I definately see the casual appeal they have, I hate them from a standpoint of fairness. I was never bothered by a tie. I always felt that either you play OT until someone wins, or you call it a tie.

That got me thinking though, because I know the shootout and the OT loss point was put in to get teams to kick it into overdrive for OT, instead of just playing tic tac who cares hockey for 5 minutes so they didn't lose the point. I still kind of like the idea of the OT loss point, even though I like ties as well. How about a 4 point system?

Regulation win = 4 points
Regulation loss = 0
Overtime win = 3 points
Overtime loss = 1 point
Tie = 2 points each.
No shootouts.

This is drastic and it may be just outright silly, considering it just came to me as I typed and I haven't put a ton of critical thought into it yet, but something like this could really shake up teams strategies during the stretch runs, and you would see many more swings up and down, and it would probably also help change this omen of the past 10 years that if you're on the outside looking in by February, you'll probably stay there.

One other thought I had, since the shootout is exciting, what if that was part of the home ice advantage? Instead of being automatic 5 minute OT, the home team, if there is a tie at the end of regulation, decides whether they want to play a 5 minutie OT, with the possibility of a tie, or go for the shootout, where we know there will be a winner, only the loser gets NO points, and the winner gets the full 4. Adds a nice Risk/Reward element doesn't it? Also gives the home team a real home ice advantage, and adds another layer of strategy in the roster make-ups of teams going into opposing buildings. Some teams will become known as shootout lovers, others as OT teams. Playoff hockey, ofcourse, needs NO adjustments.

Lastly (sorry for the loooong post, but its been a while, you know!), about the wild card system Cynic brought up (which the more I think about, the more I really like), of teams possibly switching conferences for seeding; someone brought up travel as an issue. While I can't say this wouldn't be a little problem for some teams, it's also not like Detroit and St. Louis are situated anywhere near the west coast. Hell, Toronto and L.A. used to be in the same conference. The make-up of it is pretty arbitrary as it is. The west already has a tougher schedule, because Western conference teams are spread out over the country, whereas Eastern conference, essentially means East Coast. What we have now should more accurately be called "The Atlantic Coast Conference and the Everywhere Else Conference".

Anyways, thanks for reading, if you bothered. Very cool discussion going on!

Most importantly though, I hope Moller gets a hat trick against the Isles and Frolov continues to throw the cold shoulders. May Bill Guerin experience a world of Kingly hurt... I always hated his face.

Go Kings Go!

So to sum up where the Kings have been in the Conference as of Feb. 7:

1998-99: 10th place
99-00: 8th
00-01: 9th
01-02: 8th
02-03: 10th
03-04: 9th
05-06: 8th
06-07: 15th
07-08: 15th
08-09: 11th

Every single season for the past decade either on the bubble fighting for a spot or already eliminated from the playoffs. By comparison, here is the Ducks' record from that same period:

1998-99: top 7
99-00: 10th
00-01: 15th
01-02: 14th
02-03: 8th
03-04: 13th
05-06: 9th
06-07: top 7
07-08: top 7
08-09: top 7

We can complain about our rivals to the south all we want, but at least they show a steady rise in the standings and a Stanley Cup to their credit. I'm not saying the Kings aren't on the right path, but an entire freakin' decade without even one top 7 finish? When will AEG catch a clue they are in over their collective heads and move on to other real estate ventures instead?

"I'm not saying the Kings aren't on the right path, but an entire freakin' decade without even one top 7 finish? When will AEG catch a clue they are in over their collective heads and move on to other real estate ventures instead?"

while I don't disagree, the worst is clearly over. this team has turned the corner and on the upswing where they will make the playoffs consistently for a long time.

also notable is the Ducks "surge" you're talking about, while it seems to have occupied at least half a decade was primarily the last 3 seasons.

It's great to see where every expert picked the Kings to finish this season, and where they are at right now. It's the Kings giving a big middle finger to all those so-called experts. I love it.
This team has finally got it. Kopitar has finally got how to play a strong defensive game to go along with his strong offensive game. It was just a matter of time. They believe in TM's system, and that is huge. They are getting the results, and are playing like a team. This run is reminding me of the 2001 run.
Plus, having a couple of goalie's they can have the confidence in (Quick & Ersberg) has something to do with it as well. Going a couple of seasons knowing you have Cloutier and/or LaBarbera back there would make anybody not have any confidence.
How great would it be to have the Kings be the team that beats the Ducks out for a playoff spot? That would be the icing on the cake for this season.

JDM.

My "JDM'ed" thing was all for you, I thought you'd get a chuckle from that.
Don't you hate when that happens, though?

I respect your difference of opinion, but I'd just finally point out that 5 years ago, I would have been totally on board with you and the "never" people.
5 years ago, I didn't even know what Promotion and Relegation was.
I'd just say that if you guys followed those other leagues and knew the ins-and-outs of how those leagues operated, you'd probably be totally on board with overhauling the NHL.
I still think that most NHL/Kings fans seem to be in denial about the state of the league. You guys point out why the "soccer" system can't work (it is also used in other sports like basketball, too) but don't face the realities that the NHL is going backwards and on the verge of failure as it is, right now.
On top of all of this, the KHL is in it's first year of competition, and will likely challenge the NHL's dominance even more in the coming years.
While the NHL is viewed as the "owner" of hockey, the more you look into Hockey's history the more you'll realize that the NHL is just a business organization that has hijacked the game from everyone who really owns it - or, everyone...

Hockey is a simple game. We shouldn't have all these various rules and ordinances.
Remember that movie "Field of Dreams?"
The saying was, "if you build it they will come," not, "if they come, rebuild the game to make it more profitable and more entertaining."
IMO, the NHL has perverted the competition and made it LESS interesting and compelling.

cheers.
Good to see a good long post JDM.