kliq 3,755 Report post Posted April 10, 2015 (edited) So the LA Kings were officially eliminated from the playoffs tonight. If this doesn't show people how much parity there is in the NHL, I don't know what does. This is a team that for the most part stayed healthy all year, had no major roster changes (I can only think of Voynov & Mitchell), does not have an aging/regressing roster, and has had no major personal changes. I think this just goes to show you that, it just takes a few players, or 1 bad losing streak to go from top of the world, to the outside looking in. Edited April 10, 2015 by kliq 1 marcaractac reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
haroldsnepsts 4,826 Report post Posted April 10, 2015 As I said in another thread. As someone who watches the Kings I think it came down to: -Not re-signing Willie Mitchell. He was an important part of their defense and Cup wins and left a hole in the blueline before the season even started. -Which made losing Voynov an even bigger loss than it would've been. There was also the cap issue until the league changed their ruling. But for at least a handful of games I think they couldn't even dress a full roster and had to make some odd moves and call a kid up from the minors based mostly on his salary. -Some key players not producing, like Richards. It was apparent last season he was declining. Lombardi gave him a chance to turn it around. He didn't. That also contributed to the cap problems. -The Kings being a team that struggles to score as it is, and having played a ton of hockey in the last three years. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kliq 3,755 Report post Posted April 10, 2015 You're probably right, but this just goes to show you how much parity there is. Losing 2 D-men, and having a player or two decline would not have taken you from Champs, to not even making the playoffs 15 years ago. As a Wings fan, this excites me. It show me that we are just a player or two away from being at the top of the NHL. Though it also scares me, as it show me we are an injury or two from being out of the playoffs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wings7 62 Report post Posted April 10, 2015 You're probably right, but this just goes to show you how much parity there is. Losing 2 D-men, and having a player or two decline would not have taken you from Champs, to not even making the playoffs 15 years ago. As a Wings fan, this excites me. It show me that we are just a player or two away from being at the top of the NHL. Though it also scares me, as it show me we are an injury or two from being out of the playoffs. Nah man, you didn't read the guys response closely enough. If the Wings lost Kronwall and didn't resign Quincey this year we'd be horrible. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kliq 3,755 Report post Posted April 10, 2015 Nah man, you didn't read the guys response closely enough. If the Wings lost Kronwall and didn't resign Quincey this year we'd be horrible. I fully understand and comprehend his post. Your post is literally agreeing with me as far as the substance, but you are making it sound like you are not. I am saying that in today's NHL there is such parity that a few players can make the world of difference. If you are saying that without Kronwall & Qunicey we dont make the playoffs, that reinforces my point. The LA Kings lost 2 D-men, and had Richards decline and went from Champs, to not even top 16 You are saying that if the Wings lost 2 major players it would put them out of the playoffs, which I think is true (though I think if Marchenko or Oulete came in for Q we would be okay). But I also think if they added a couple (lets say Boychuk & JoeThonton) they could be a front runner for the Cup. My point isnt about the Wings, its about the parity of today's NHL. 1 wings7 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wings7 62 Report post Posted April 10, 2015 I fully understand and comprehend his post. Your post is literally agreeing with me as far as the substance, but you are making it sound like you are not. I am saying that in today's NHL there is such parity that a few players can make the world of difference. If you are saying that without Kronwall & Qunicey we dont make the playoffs, that reinforces my point. The LA Kings lost 2 D-men, and had Richards decline and went from Champs, to not even top 16 You are saying that if the Wings lost 2 major players it would put them out of the playoffs, which I think is true (though I think if Marchenko or Oulete came in for Q we would be okay). But I also think if they added a couple (lets say Boychuk & JoeThonton) they could be a front runner for the Cup. My point isnt about the Wings, its about the parity of today's NHL. Okay fair. I suppose. It's confusing in your initial post. But I'm clear on it now. My bad. 1 kliq reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
amato 3,210 Report post Posted April 10, 2015 Tank for McDavid!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Playmaker Report post Posted April 10, 2015 It would be kind of ironic if they got the top pick. It does drive home the point that you can do everything right, have a ton of talent, but stuff happens and you don't win. It makes the 24 straight years in the playoffs all the more impressive, despite the disappointing way it came about. 1 amato reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
amato 3,210 Report post Posted April 10, 2015 I'd love for the kings to get McDavid haha. Or could you imagine Dallas getting him and having a potential Seguin, Benn, McDavid combo. Really though, just anyone but Toronto Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMRwings1983 8,794 Report post Posted April 10, 2015 Not surprising really. They weren't a high seed the last few years even when they got in. Maybe they'll take the regular season seriously for a change. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
derblaueClaus 1,668 Report post Posted April 10, 2015 As I said in another thread. As someone who watches the Kings I think it came down to: -Not re-signing Willie Mitchell. He was an important part of their defense and Cup wins and left a hole in the blueline before the season even started. -Which made losing Voynov an even bigger loss than it would've been. There was also the cap issue until the league changed their ruling. But for at least a handful of games I think they couldn't even dress a full roster and had to make some odd moves and call a kid up from the minors based mostly on his salary. -Some key players not producing, like Richards. It was apparent last season he was declining. Lombardi gave him a chance to turn it around. He didn't. That also contributed to the cap problems. -The Kings being a team that struggles to score as it is, and having played a ton of hockey in the last three years. I think one point was also a struggling Quick. The worsened defense plays a role there of course, but at some time during the season quick didn't look as solid as he used to. He found his game later, but there are some goals and points the Kings probably like to get back. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
haroldsnepsts 4,826 Report post Posted April 10, 2015 I think one point was also a struggling Quick. The worsened defense plays a role there of course, but at some time during the season quick didn't look as solid as he used to. He found his game later, but there are some goals and points the Kings probably like to get back.Definitely. I couldn't remember what stretch he struggle in. Some time earlier in the season I think, but eventually found his form. They started the season well, lost Voynov, then team just never clicked enough to make up for their crappy start outside of another hot streak in February. And they couldn't seem to hang on to a lead, which is familiar. They ended up 19th in Goals per game, and were mediocre at best in other areas. So I do agree, with the parity in the league those kind of numbers aren't going to get you in the postseason. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RedWingsRox 614 Report post Posted April 10, 2015 If I was in the West say Vancouver Canucks. I might actually prefer playing an out of gas LA team than a hot Flames team ... what do you think? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
