• Paul from Oxnard


  • nayagamj
  • Ciccarelli

    Rich, (or someone else) please explain.

    My understanding was he burned up the year off his one year contract by being on the roster last season. The contract isn’t extended a year because he was over the age of 19 at the time.

  • AK47

    Marcel Goc is a free agent now.. I know he didn’t put up huge numbers, but DL did draft him in 2001, so I wouldn’t be surprised if we signed him..

  • -J

    Good question Ciccarelli, i was wondering this myself, about Eakins and Patrick Mullen (is he signed now for 1 more or 2 more years?).

  • Cry Baby

    No Goc please. The Kings do not need another checking forward. How about someone that can put a few pucks in the net?

  • Tim


    Great point.. I would have to agree with you.

  • Tim


    What do you think. Jay Mckee, will be getting 2.66M (That’s 2/3’s of 4M), and St. Louis can split that up over 2 season, so that’s 1.33M a year. Do you think that DL would go after him, and offer him around 5 – 6M for 2 years? The guy has been plaqued with injuries and they all mostly come from blocking shots. He’s 31, and I believe will be a vital part of someones team, Maybe even the ducks.

    To me McKee would be a GREAT #5, or #6 dman, and would bring A LOT of experiance to the team, and could really help out someone like JJ, Hickey, Dew..etc….

    What are your thoughts! Great stuff as always Rich!


  • dclark

    great article on NHL.com…Go Kings


  • Rob

    According to a Rangers blog update it sounds like they are counting on Boyle playing a physical game. Boy are they in for a surprise.

    Here’s a cut regarding the Rangers UFA’s

    UFA not signed: Blair Betts (replaced by Boyle and another player who may be missed on the penalty kill), Colton Orr (if Boyle can’t handle the role, may rue this day when Rangers are getting physically abused in games) and Pierre Parenteau.

  • 4thlinechecker


  • Primakov

    Patrick Mullen still has two-years left on his contract because the terms of his contract do not begin until the start of the 2009-2010 season, which is why he did not skate with either the Kings or Monarchs last year.

    I’m almost positive, however, that the contract for Corey Elkins was intentionally signed to count for the 2008-2009 season and the reason for that was that by having him listed on the pro roster for the 2008-2009 season (starting with the April 2nd game against the Phoenix Coyotes) it allowed the Kings to give him bonus money in the entry-level contract they extended him. It was a way to give him extra cash incentive to sign with the Kings.

    It’s actually kind of slick on Lombardi’s part. Very similar to how he managed to manipulate the contract parameters for Joe Piskula some years back.

  • AK47

    4th line,

    easy on the caps big guy, but ya, Chad LaRose would be a nice fit, ex teammates with Justin Williams and was apart of the Stanley Cup team in Carolina.. Proven winner, puts the puck in the net and can drop the gloves.. I’d bet he’s on the Kings’ radar

  • AEG rulez

    At this point, McKee is comparable to a 1993 Pontiac with 160k miles. Pass. Ohlund would be more attractive.

  • TB

    I agree about Chad LaRose. Reminds me of a younger Lappy. I started being a fan of the guy after seeing the NHL network’s “A Day in the Life” program about him. He’s an energy guy with a lot to offer in the locker room. He’d be a match made in heaven with Zeus and Simmonds.

  • KevinWestgarth


    I think both Chad Larose and Travis Moen should be signed. Those two acquisitions would immediately give the Kings the team toughness that they have lacked. Of course, Westgarth has to play too.


  • 4thlinechecker

    Sorry guys, I thought LaRose was a left wing, but I checked and he shoots right. Canes have him listed as a center, but I know he played left at one point. 19 goals last season, not bad for a gritty guy.

  • TB


    Don’t get me wrong, both Moen and LaRose are very good additions to anyone’s roster. My only problem is that they fill the same slot and don’t address our larger need for scoring help. I think the prudent move is to sign either one of these guys, but not both. Leaving the available cap space for a pricey yet necessary LW that can fill the net. Our top line is not a “top line” by NHL standards yet. We need more than just a 2A and a 2B pair of wingers. We need a bonafide 1A LW.

  • nykingfan

    Kevin Westgarth

    Here’s the problem with your lines….where are the goals coming from other than the 1st line?
    LaRose/Stroll/Brown is more of a checking 3rd line, than a scoring line.

  • KevinWestgarth


    I agree that goals will be hard to come by, but the team will have more offense with the line-up I proposed than last year’s team. Keep in mind that JW will be healthy. Kopi will be in shape. Larose will add 20 more goals to the line-up. Also, this is considering DL doesn’t acquire a scorer…

  • -J

    Invited to the U.S. Olympic orientation camp: Brown, JJ

    Not Invited: POS

  • Bernie9

    Frolov is a bonafide 1A LW

  • TB


    “Also, this is considering DL doesn’t acquire a scorer…”

    Adding both Moen and LaRose would put the Kings out of budget for a scorer. So your proposition is simply a hinderance on the real need. Having 2 of the same thing isn’t a good idea. I don’t see how the lineup you are suggesting could improve scoring. If anything it promotes the same type play we saw last season.

    But I have to ask…based on your quote above. After all the indicators show that the Kings are first focused on a 1A LW, then a top 4 defenceman, how do justify signing two players for the same role that is not an immediate need?

    You see, a little more offense compared to last year still sucks. We need a drastic change in goals for. At least 50 more goals than last year. Solution: a 40 goal scoring LW to start. Trevor Lewis can arguably fill the role of grinding forward capable of 20 goals.

    (1A LW) – Kopitar – JW
    Frolov – Stoll – Brown
    LaRose – Handzus – Simmonds
    Lewis – Moller – Westgarth

  • TB

    Bernie9…I argue that when the main issue with Frolov is his consistency, he isn’t a ‘bonafide’ first liner. He’s a 1A on some nights and a ghost on others. On most teams, he’d be slotted as a 2nd line forward. no better.

  • Quisp


    *I picked a name, but this spot could easily be filled by any number of prospects, namely: Azevedo, Moulson (plays LW with Moller dropping back to C), King, Wudrick, Clune…

    If DL picks up a top-six UFA, you’re looking at:

    Fro/Ko/Sto/Bo/Williams and UFA in some combination as your top two lines.
    Purcell/Moller/Simmonds (third line)
    Lewis/Handzus/(prospect: Cliche? Elkins? Clune? Somebody…)

  • Bernie9

    TB I simply disagree. On some nights he doesn’t completely dominate like he does most nights…but that’s not inconsistency, that’s the NHL. He’s got a great all around game & when he happens not to be so dominating, he does not hurt you anywhere on the ice. Maybe his goal scoring & point totals aren’t as great as some of the top LWs in the league but he definitely has a more complete game then the vast majority.

  • KevinWestgarth


    The lineup you propose simply lacks toughness

  • TB

    Bernie9….You’re not wrong about your comments. Except the part about “Thats the NHL…”. “Thats the AHL” is what I’d say. The defining difference between winning in the NHL is CONSISTENCY. No doubt about it.

    Frolov is a great 2 way player. Just not for 80 games. And yes, vs. the majority he is better than most…thats why he is a defnite top 6 player. Moreover, he’s a natural RW. This is important because as a right handed shot, in the defensive end, his strong side is along the boards, where it matters most. Overall, we agree about his talent. But to be a top team, he isn’t talented enough to fill the top spot. Its like what DL said about Kopi…of course he’s awesome…but honestly, he’s not yet a true 1A center. For Kopitar to reach that level, he needs more than Frolov on his wing. He needs a finisher that can bury the chances Kopi creates…consistently.

  • -J

    TB, you’re incorrect about the handness determining the position like that. This isn’t Peewee hockey. Frolov is a LW, just as Ovechkin is a LW, just as Kovalchuk is a LW- all of them right shots.

  • Bernie9

    TB – I think maybe the view of Frolov being inconsistent comes from him being a very unique player (and a Russian, they ALL get that label for some reason – except maaayybe Ovechkin; he just has his own game & way of seeing the ice. And nobody dominates in the corners & behind the net like Fro! I’m not against an upgrade at LW for the top line, I’m just saying we have no problems with him playing up there. And ultimately I do believe the past two seasons (playing hurt most of the time) he’s really improved his consistency as he’s now entering his prime.

  • TB

    Agreed Bernie. No problem in front, yes. Needs to be even better in front…absoloutely. If we can get a superstar 1A and have Fro as a 1B its game over. The death star will be fully operational.

  • Bernie9

    “TB said:
    If we can get a superstar 1A and have Fro as a 1B its game over. The death star will be fully operational.”

    IT’S A DEAL!! That’d be the best of all worlds! I’m just hoping he signs in a couple weeks so we can make that happen!

  • TB


    In the North American school of hockey it causes problems. Its why TM has always felt uncomfortable putting Fro on the LW. He belongs on the right for defensive purposes.

    The other two guys you mentioned are first both pure goal scoreres not known for the defensive game at all. The inside shot is a completely offensive advantage with no defensive benefits. Second, their training and development came mostly on olympic ice with less play along the boards. Different game…its not as important to have the strong side along the boards like in the NHL game.

    Frolov admittingly likes the RW better because it benefits his puck protection game. But go ahead and look at the number of LW players that are lefty vs. those that are righty. You’ll see the consistency that most of the LW’s are left handed. From a coach’s angle…it matters big time. The same thinking is applied to the left vs. right handed defenceman. Strong side on the boards…It has to do with breaking out, defending the point, puck battles, and cutting off passing lanes. There is defintely a very very good reason for this.

    Now some teams may switch it up on PP’s or if they have that special guy that can play the off wing. Frolov is definitely one of them, but he is best suited for the right side. So sorry, I’m not wrong. I’m not making this up. This concept is a fundamental of defensive hockey.

  • -J

    Given that I’ve played on both wings and left and right defense, even though i’m a left shot, as a kid, in high school, and beyond, I think i know a thing or two about it. I don’t want to belabor the point with examples and such, but it is not as cut and dry as you put it within defensive systems, at least not those being played at the junior and professional level. There are beyond plenty of examples and exceptions that show it is not a necessity and not a rule, or rather in your words, a fundamental.

  • TB

    J – respectfully you’re right that its not necessary. But in context of the Kings and how TM emphasises defence with the forwards, this is important stuff. Everything I’m saying is relative to the specific team we are talking about. Thats the system that is in place, and to be successful, it is best for him to be on the right. And ya…it is a fundamental of defence. Nobody said a thing about it being a necessity or a rule. Just a school of thought about the benefits of good stick position.

    Hell…I’m a lefty and I play the right wing myself. So you’re right that its not a problem to move guys around. Especially for those sweet cross ice one timer feeds!!

    Do you still play?

  • Blake

    larose and gabrik are my favorites dont no if thats how its going to turn out though

  • Democratic Party candidates as a partisan publication. ,