In this last part of the interview with Dean Lombardi, he talks about his expectations for the Kings going forward…
Question: Your team’s basic goal this season, to make the playoffs, was pretty obvious. You’ve talked, in the past, about how difficult it can be for teams to follow up on that, to build on that and take the next step. Going into next season, what can you say to them to sharpen that focus, to make sure they’re focused on a new, even bigger goal?
LOMBARDI: “It’s Hamburger Hill. I told them after the season that they’re ready to hear the Hamburger Hill speech for the first time. My boys in San Jose, they text me and say, `Did you give them the Hamburger Hill speech yet?’ No, not yet. The point is, it’s what you’re talking about, and that was certainly a theme when I talked to them as a group at the end of the year, and as individuals. `It starts now. You’re back at the bottom. You can be proud of what you accomplished, but the fact of the matter is that you’re going all the way back down to the bottom again.’ We had success, but that success is only going to be valuable if we learn why we failed. Our success puts us in situations where we can learn the level we have to get to, and learn from our mistakes so we don’t fail again. That’s the story of Hamburger Hill, in a nutshell. That’s the whole point of that story, and then going back to the bottom because you didn’t make it to the top. It was a great story, told to me by a certain Vietnam vet 15 years ago. I thought about how it pertained to hockey, and I gave it in San Jose and it kind of became a buzz word. The kids would text me during the season, wondering if I had done it here yet. They know how I feel about how a team is built, and they were wondering if we were close, to where we were ready. I thought they were ready at the end of the year.
“It’s a way to make that point that you’re talking about. If the boys up there are still thinking about it, it must have resonated pretty well (laughs). Most of them are retired though. But I believe that, and that is the challenge. I guess I’m getting a little off track here, but the point is that you start delivering that message right away. `It’s going to be harder. Don’t forget, too, that when we started out well and got ahead of the pack, nobody respected you. Nobody prepared for you. Nobody was circling any names on the board. Cover this guy.’ Kopi was probably the microcosm of that, right? He leads the league in scoring and, uh oh, now you’re starting to draw some checkers and they’re paying attention to you and it gets a little harder. Well, the same thing can happen to this team now, so you better be ready. No freebies now because teams don’t respect you.
“The expectations thing, dealing with expectations, that’s huge. Until they learn to deal with it, they’ll never be a great team. That’s a big difference from coming in and saying, `Our goal is to make the playoffs.’ That’s every team’s goal. Every team says that. But the reality is, I think they thought they had a chance at it. They thought they could have done it. But they have to get to a point where it’s, `Hey, we know we can do this now. We have to get it done.’ And it ain’t going to be easy, as we see in this league right now. The fact of the matter, too, is that we won a lot of games in shootouts. We’ve got to get a whole lot better.”
Great series Rich! Can’t thank you enough!
[Reply]
Excellent. That is the only way to look at it. If you don’t mind Dean, I will be Hamburger Hill-ing my kids today as we start the baseball playoffs.
With regards to the Kopi example, it was easy to target him because there were no other targets to worry about. That has to be the goal this off-season. Give teams more than one sniper to fret over. Spread the checkers thin then exploit the weakness.
We need a 40+ guy here, that will turn Kopi into a 40+ man and possibly others into 30+ players. It’s all about adding multiple weapons, multiple threats, spread the opposition thin and overwhelm them.
Cannot wait until October. GO KINGS GO!
[Reply]
Krusher Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 8:00 pm
P.S. It worked! We won! My kids made Hamburger of our opponents today. Dean is the man!
[Reply]
This just illustrates how tough it is to be an elite team. The Kings just went through a tough season, filled with competitive games, injuries, and other adversity. But it’s only going to be tougher next year, and even tougher the year after, etc. It speaks volumes for a franchise like Detroit.
[Reply]
Stuart Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 11:45 am
@EJ, but before we start stroking Detroit’s D remember who is in their division… aside from the Hawks (who were not that great prior to two years ago) they play the Preds (so-so) Blues, and Jackets. Those were a lot of 2 point games for Detroit in the last decade or so.
[Reply]
blah blah Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
@Stuart,
dont forget that detroit has appeared in the finals 5 times in the last 13 seasons. and they have won the cup in 4 of those 5. i dont think thats a direct result from being in a semi-weak division.
[Reply]
Stuart Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
@blah blah, ok 5 for 13, but it sure helps getting home ice throughout the playoffs when you get to beat up on every team in your division for 10 of those years… I’m willing to bet they soaked at least 40 of their points in those years from within their division. And that IS a direct result of being a very weak division for that period.
blah blah Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
@stuart,
i hate the red wings too, but lets be honest and admit that theyve had a strong team and have been a smart organization with top scouts which have allowed them to be at or near the top of the league for over a decade. your argument that the only reason they succeed in the regular season is because theyre in a weak division and the only reason they succeed in the playoffs is because they have home ice advantage just is not a strong enough argument. sorry…
Quisp Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
@Stuart,
Please. Detroit is as close to a dynasty as we’ve seen since the first Gretzky trade dismantled the Oilers. You could make the same argument about the 70s Canadiens, the 80s Isles and Oilers. “Expansion diluted the talent pool,” blah blah blah. True, but so what? The pool was diluted for everyone. If Detroit had to play so many bad teams, that might explain them getting to the playoffs, but it doesn’t explain winning four rounds of playoffs FIVE TIMES and winning three rounds a couple other times (New Jersey back in the early 90s and Pitt last year). The weak division argument can only be proved by playoff failure. The Red Wings are one of the best teams in the playoffs in the last two decades.
(you could also argue what the wings did was harder than what, say, the Habs did in the 70s, since the Habs only had to win 3 rounds, and before 67 you only had to win 2 rounds.)
[Reply]
Stuart Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
@Quisp, “If Detroit had to play so many bad teams, that might explain them getting to the playoffs, but it doesn’t explain winning…”
It explains #1 seats and playing the lowest teams as they move through the playoffs. Look, the teams were good, but some of their teams also lost to an #8 seed or others on those years that they didn’t get to the finals.
“The weak division argument can only be proved by playoff failure.”
And there were quite a few years of playoff failure, too. 5 of 13 means 8 early exits… playoff failure?
deadcatbounce Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
@Quisp, Damn, and here I thought he was talking about In-And-Out or Tommy’s.
quisp Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 2:22 pm
@stuart,
here’s the problem:
1997 (won cup)
seed #3
in div.: 9-11-8
vs. West: 21-20-15
vs. East: 17-6-3
(note: not getting any benefit from crappy record in division)
1998 (won cup)
seed #3
div.: 13-8-7
vs. West: 27-17-12
vs. East: 17-6-3
(note: top three teams in Detroit’s division were better than ALL the teams in the other division)
2002 (won cup)
seed #1
div.: 10-4-4-2
vs. West: 33-14-10-3
vs. East: 18-3-0-1
2008 (won cup)
seed #1
div.: 17-12-1-2
vs. West: 47-19-1-5
vs. East: 7-2-1-0
(note: much better out of division than within division)
In two of those cup seasons, they’re much better outside of their own division. In one year, their division dominates the rest of the conference. And half the time they aren’t the 1st seed, they’re 3rd.
Other than that, sure.
Stuart Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 10:35 am
@Quisp, Other than that, sure? REALLY? Let’s take a closer look, shall we? My point is that they benefited from a weak division and you don’t agree, yet you stated “The weak division argument can only be proved by playoff failure.”
We’ll start at 94-95
94-95 decent division, cruise through west lose in Finals to NJ
95-96 win a weak div by 35+ points and lose in the 3rd round
98-99 win div with only on STL competitive and lose in 2nd to AVS
99-00 still only STL in div, finish 2nd and are out in 2nd
00-01 win a fairly weak div and bounced 1st round
02-03 win another fairly weak div, finish 2nd in west, bounced in 1st round
03-04 win div by 18 points, best record in NHL, bounced in 2nd round
05-06 win div by 18 points, best record in NHL, bounced in 1st round
06-07 NSH challenges, still finish tied for best record in the NHL, bounced in 3rd round
So if you’re willing to go year-to-year then explain these years? Again, my point is/was that they benefited from playing in a weak division. This CANNOT be refuted.
RLane420 Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 11:08 am
@Quisp, Some people are so blinded by there hate of somthing they cant see the reality. Winning as much as they have in this league is not easy. When the Kings where in this division with the New Ducks and Sharks we couldnt win the cup and that was a pretty weak division. This isnt a bush league it is hard to win the cup. We have had our share of weak division years, still no cup. The theory just doesnt hold water period. I hate the Wings but you have to admit when a team is ran well and they have proven it. How many people said after the salary cap the Wings are done. This was also proved wrong. Stewart is welcomed to his opinion even though it is wrong.
Stuart Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 11:21 am
@Rlane, when the ducks and sharks came in, the kings were right there with them as weak teams and they also had to contend with CAL and VAN, too.
Am I really blinded by hate or maybe making a point that you can’t wrap your brain around? Yes, it’s hard to win the cup, yes they have had great teams, and YES they’ve been associated with weak divisions for a long time. Enough said.
quisp Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 11:50 am
@stuart
first of all, i have no dog in this fight. i am not a wings fan. but the numbers don’t support your thesis. first of all, it’s not sufficient simply to list all the times they lost and show that they won the division or almost won that year. You would have to show correlation, which you haven’t done. A first step would be to show that in each of those seasons they won their divisions BECAUSE of an abundance of wins against teams in their division. I looked at the years in which they won the cup, and showed that if anything they were worse in their division than outside of it.
Something I neglected to mention earlier: if your premise were true, you would expect Detroit not to be the first seed at all, because their weak-ass record would be first in their division but not first in the conference. This of course has not been the case.
Also, it’s easy to find examples of a great team losing in the playoffs because that’s what every team does 90% of the time; they lose in the playoffs. Even the great teams lose in the playoffs. Now, on the other hand, let’s look at a list of teams with three or more cup wins going back to 1967 (year one of expansion).
Montreal – 10 cups. (8 in 12 years from 67-79)
NY Islanders – 4 cups. (4 in four years)
Oilers – 5 cups. (5 in 6 years, ’83-89)
Detroit – 4 cups (in 12 years).
Devils – 3 cups (3 in nine years from 94 to 03)
Pens – 3 cups (in 18 years, 90-08)
Montreal was practically immortal through ’79, but after that they’re in a less stellar group that includes COL, DAL, and the collection of one-offs. NYI and EDM are legitimate dynasties. DET and NJD presided over a longer period winning 1/3 of the cups and surviving significant shifts in personnel.
In the post-Gretzky era, no team has been as successful as the wings. Saying that they didn’t win the cup 8 times in 12 seasons proves nothing, since obviously, that’s the fewest playoff series losses of any team in that period (ignoring of course the fact that some teams have fewer series losses because they don’t even make the playoffs). A .334 cup winning percentage is the highest of any team since gretzky left the Oilers.
But if you want to look at the wings’ record in their division, be my guest. I already showed that in the years in which they won the cup they weren’t helped by their division record AT ALL.
RLane420 Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 10:50 am
@EJ, Ask Vancouver about weak divisions and loosing in the playoffs. Where are they now after dominating there WEAK division. I guess your theory doesnt hold very well. By the way St Louis and the Preds have not been weak for the past 13 years. 80 plus games is 80 plus games this is the NHL not the minors and this schedule of playing more intra division games hasnt been around for 13 years either.
[Reply]
quisp Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 12:16 pm
@stuart
You’re not looking at the numbers dispassionately. You have not offered even the slimmest evidence that Detroit’s division was “weak.” And then, having NOT established that, you proceed NOT to show that there’s any correlation between the weakness you haven’t defined or verified and the wings’ success (or failure).
Here’s an example of what you need to do to prove your point:
1) establish that the wings’ record in their division accounted for a disproportionately high % of their points… (note: I see no evidence of this; there is none during the cup years)
2)…in a year which the other teams in their division finished disproportionately low in the conference standings…
3) and then show that, as a result of their easy division, they…
Wait a minute. I just noticed something. Your theory is self-validating. It doesn’t predict anything. i.e. if the wings win the cup, they won because they had an unfair advantage in the playoffs because they were in a weak division. But is they LOSE in the playoffs, it’s because of course they weren’t able to compete with teams outside their division, so as soon as they bumped into one, they lost.
See? Self-validating. The logic is, the wings win because they’re in a weak division, and the proof that they’re in a weak division is that in the playoffs they frequently lose, which proves the inferiority of their division, or win, which proves the inferiority of their division.
[Reply]
jet Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
@quisp, The circle is complete.
Cristobal was a lot more fun.
Heavy G Reply:
June 6th, 2010 at 1:45 am
@quisp,
Logic. How dare you?
DellaNooch Reply:
June 6th, 2010 at 10:30 am
@quisp, Beyond your statistics, that clearly show your point, if you watch Detriot over the past 15 years, then you know they were that good
here’s an old but good story about DET
http://blogs.pe.com/prosports/2009/05/alexander-red-wings-a-template.html
what’s a hamburger hill? you can eat a hill? i’m confused.
[Reply]
Quisp Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 11:43 am
@gboi,
Hamburger Hill was the nick-name of a famous battle in Vietnam, which — in terms of how most people who know about it think about it — doesn’t really embody the lesson Lombardi is conveying here.
It’s called Hamburger Hill because soldiers get ground up like hamburger.
There are two important points about Hamburger Hill: (1) US forces were ordered to take the hill despite the fact that it had no strategic value, and after they succeeded in taking the hill, sustaining heavy casualties, the generals essentially gave it back to the North Vietnamese soon after; (2) Hamburger Hill is generally thought of as the (or at least a major) turning point in the public’s perception of Vietnam.
Essentially, Hamburger Hill is a metaphor of futility, of being forced to fight a battle that you can’t win, that will probably kill you or your friends, and that, even if you succeed, is fundamentally pointless.
Lombardi’s version, however, appears to be something along the lines of “if you don’t take the hill, you go back to the bottom and start over.”
(The actual message is “if you take the hill, it’s meaningless because it never meant anything in the first place.”)
[Reply]
Stuart Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 11:48 am
@Quisp, I don’t know if DL meant “take the hill” it’s about understanding that the hill will always be there to climb and re-climb. Even if they “took” the hill a new season would find them back at the bottom of it, along with everyone else.
But otherwise, very good breakdown of the hill in its real world meaning. Waste of time, man-power, and lives.
[Reply]
variable Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
@Quisp,
well, i guess you know more than hockey…well-done…(!)
my father was a first-class sergeant for the army during some serious conflicts between ’66-’68…he often uses sports analogies when describing how it was like in the battlefield at the time…so i totally understand where d.l. is coming from…
in terms of hockey…the journey itself should never be considered futile before it begins…if you fail during that first trek, you have to use that failure to inspire success the next time around…and there should be nothing but desire…
and that’s the real message here – stay hungry, my kings…(!)
[Reply]
BakoCAkingsCondorsGuy Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
@Quisp,
Actually, I think the point DL’s making is that each season is a new hill, and that no matter what it took to climb the hill last season, and no matter what the glory of the success of climbing the hill last season, this season is a new season, a new hill, a new challenge.
I get your point, though…
Re-climbing a meaningless hill just for the purpose of climbing it while so many of your buddies DIE during the process is the ultimate in meaningless hopelessness, and that was the message derived during the Vietnam War.
However, an additional meaning was present during the battle and during the movie representation of the battle. Sometimes it’s not just about cost-effectiveness or expediency, especially in battle. Now there are battles in hockey games and battles within wars, with much higher stakes… But the point is the same:
How much are you willing to sacrifice in order to achieve your goals?
In the case of the war and the movie, the sacrifice is EXTREME, the loss of life. Yet the battle was just that–a battle. It became important to win the battle and take the hill, not for the hill’s value in an expedient sense, but because the battle became a microcosm of the entire war. Lose that meaningless battle and you lose the battle of wills with the enemy.
In the case of hockey, all players are willing to sacrifice to a certain level to attain their goal of winning a Stanley Cup. With the achievement of the playoffs, the Kings proved they were willing to get to that level. But, are they willing to climb that same mountain and sacrifice even more… and then more, and then even MORE THAN THAT…? The other team is, and maybe that is the reason they beat you in the playoffs.
The moral of Hamburger Hill is one of sacrifice, at ever increasing levels, until one day there is a winner… Is the winner you? If not, then maybe the whole battle has been of no value, to you.
A veteran of NHL wars might be inclined to draw the line of his limit for sacrifice a bit higher than a rookie to achieve the ultimate goal of the Stanley Cup. A winner of the Cup might draw his limit even higher…
So, Kings players–be prepared. A higher level of sacrifice WILL BE REQUIRED
[Reply]
BakoCAkingsCondorsGuy Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
…To win the Stanley Cup.
Quisp Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
@BakoCAkingsCondorsGuy,
I agree, except that with regard to the actual “Hamburger Hill,” there is no goal, as it turns out. The goal is b.s.. The soldiers have to take the hill whether or not the goal is a meaningful goal. And it’s not. It’s pointless.
Compare to D-Day. Massive loss of life. But: meaningful goal.*
I guess the bottom line of my point of contention is this: Hamburger Hill is about betrayal by your superiors in whom you have put your trust. The mission is futile because the people who ordered you to undertake it are capricious. As a metaphor it strongly suggests that you should be incredibly skeptical of “management.”
Lombardi is, actually, a good leader I think. He has principles and he sticks to them and doesn’t expect people to fight meaningless battles. For that reason, his own metaphor is doing him a disservice.
*WARNING — This is a digression that has nothing to do with hockey: They were going to postpone the Normandy invasion because all the weather experts said there was going to be a huge storm that day; storm would mean, among other things, that it would be much harder to come ashore, so forces would be destroyed at sea before they could ever land. But (Montgomery? Eisenhower? I forget) consulted with this little old crazy Irish (I think) weather savant who sort of stuck his finger in the air and said, “it will be clear tomorrow.” So they went, and the rest is history. However, had they gone with the conventional wisdom, they would have had to wait for two weeks for the moon to be where it needed to be (I believe they needed a moonless night); on that day, two weeks later, was one of the worst storms in memory, so they would either have had to cancel or they would have failed. Had that occurred, it’s not that Germany wouldn’t have been defeated, but the Soviets would have gotten to Berlin first and in fact likely would have gotten all the way to the Atlantic without the Americans ever coming ashore. There would have been a completely different post-war Europe. No NATO. No East/West Berlin. A Soviet controlled continent. And this alternate outcome was not merely possible but was, in retrospect, overwhelmingly the most likely.
Talk about a must-win game, that D-Day.
Hamburger Hill, that’s more, “must not play.”
BakoCAkingsCondorsGuy Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
@Quisp,
That sounds like ‘Catch 22′, to me…
Or, if you will defer, I prefer ‘Pork Chop Hill’, as suggested below…
But then, your ‘what if?’ is quite interesting. If the Allies hadn’t gone for another month, perhaps the Germans would’ve pulled more front-line divisions from Europe and the D-Day attack would’ve been Antwerp or Calais with an even more spectacular success than Patton’s drive to the Rhine (remember the Battle of the Bulge–those hidden Panzer divisions would’ve gone eastward, instead of towards Bastogne…).
–Ya never Know!–
King John Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
I think DL is referring to the hill as to where the Kings are at now in their hockey progress. They need to keep the hill they battled for and work toward gaining further ground in the hockey war (like the Vietnam War).
DL wants the Kings to avoid the following scenario (paralleling the soldiers): They succeed in taking the hill with GREAT SACRIFICE, but instead of holding onto it (whatever the reason), the hill was NOT valued and given away; this would end up being devastating. The hill was valuable in psychological perception and progression (both in the war and in hockey), and when given away it turned the tide toward defeat. Even if the value of the hill or making the playoffs is limited and not the ultimate goal, don’t give away the momentum and be forced to start over in that sense. Let’s hold the hill and move on to greater victories!
[Reply]
luc20rules Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 7:30 pm
@Quisp, Excellent, I too was thinking the same, but do get the hill / season comparison DL was going for.
As far as milatary strategy goes Sun Tzu states “Avoid attacking an enemy that controls the high ground. Face your opponent on ground your choosing.”. In sports win home ice advantage? I would say the advice is almost as good as Vacinni “Never engage in a major land war in Asia”.
[Reply]
KC23 Reply:
June 6th, 2010 at 6:46 am
@Quisp,
I agree. A horrible metaphor if you know anything about the history of Hamburger Hill. Your description was spot on and I just don’t see how that oould be used in the context he was going for. Strange.
[Reply]
USHA#17 Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 4:58 pm
@gboi,
That battle required a number of assaults before the ultimate goal was achieved.
The troops returned to the bottom and the process again over…until the top of the hill was captured.
The analogy is each season is a new assault along the path to capturing the cup.
[Reply]
King John Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 6:26 pm
@USHA#17,
What you say makes excellent sense according to what DL said:
“You can be proud of what you accomplished, but the fact of the matter is that you’re going all the way back down to the bottom again. We had success, but that success is only going to be valuable if we learn why we failed. Our success puts us in situations where we can learn the level we have to get to, and learn from our mistakes so we don’t fail again. That’s the story of Hamburger Hill, in a nutshell.”
[Reply]
Dominick Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 7:24 am
@USHA#17,Excellent job.
[Reply]
The expectation needs to be to win the CUP. I am really looking forward to July 1st…should be a interesting offseason.
[Reply]
yes…i’m glad dl is going to give the hamburger hill speech instead of the hamburger helper one…i just hope he doesn’t make them watch that awful movie, because that would significantly deflate his message to the team…(!)
RICH…:
thanks for another tremendous q & a…this one was not as long as war and peace (i guess we got a military theme going today), but was very lengthy in scope and insight…d.l. loves talking…and he seems to be exceptionally comfortable talking with you…anytime an interviewee feels compelled to give intricate details to questions instead of deferring to the standard benign answers demonstrates yr keen ability to ask the appropriate question and receive the desired response…
i thank d.l. for taking the time and effort in really explaining at great length what the current state of the union is heading into the draft and the team’s plans/goals for the upcoming season…make it happen, do it well…:)
[Reply]
BakoCAkingsCondorsGuy Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
@V,
Considering how much we all seem to be obsessed with FOOD, I’m not so sure…
Certainly it’s true that if the Kings ate the amounts of In N Out burgers, chili fries and such before sampling Tommy’s version, etc., adding in the hot thin fries with Ketchup with plenty of salt and a few cold frothy beverages to wash it down–
–I doubt that’s the kind of sacrifice Dean had in mind…
[Reply]
variable Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 2:30 pm
@BakoCAkingsCondorsGuy,
well we know he pounded the nutritional aspect to the team before last season…and i’m sure d.l. will continue to do so every chance he gets again during the off-season…that’s his style…
[Reply]
VanKingsFan Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
@variable,
Hey now… I think you need re-watch Hamburger Hill! What a flick! Classic
[Reply]
variable Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
@VanKingsFan,
maybe i do…i saw it when i was a teenager and i remember not being impressed with it…i also remember many of us thought it was a studio answer to kubrick’s full metal jacket…and i vaguely remember trying to re-watch it on cable years later and not being any more moved…cest la vie…
[Reply]
Pierre LeBrun said he believes LA will be a cup contender next season
[Reply]
Old Codger Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
@Mike L, I agree. They actually were a cup contender this year. Deep in their guts they realize the only reason they didn’t eliminate the canucks was the inability to play a 60 minute game. They lost them all in the third or OT.
Next year, with that in mind, (and a sniper), barring injuries, they have no reason not to believe.
[Reply]
Does DL ever give a real answer to a question, instead of beating around the bush?
[Reply]
nykingfan Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
@Khanon,
He did…re-read it. It makes compelte sense.
[Reply]
Speaking of food and battles of no strategic importance,don’t forget the Korean War’s Pork Chop Hill.
[Reply]
Old Codger Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
@Steve, Not disrespectful, but except for a few of us old neanderthal’s, I would venture to say the vast majority of the people on this blog have scant recollection of Vietnam, and may never even have heard of the Korean War (conflict).
I was thinking of Pork-chop hill when I was reading DL’s comments.
Actually PCH was of significance because the armistice was already going to be signed and the North Koreans wanted that piece of real estate to save face, but we damn sure wasn’t going to let them have it. It was an up and down battle for a spell.
[Reply]
quisp Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
@Old Codger,
I believe the term “Hamburger Hill” was coined as a nod to “Pork Chop Hill,” the legend of which had a certain pointless futility built into it. I prefer Lord Stanley Hill anyway. Or is that Mount Stanley?
[Reply]
As cool as the hamburger hill thing is, Lombardi didn’t really answer the question. What is the goal for next year?
is it to go deep in the playoffs or win the cup? Realistically, I think it should be the former. 
[Reply]
Sydor25 Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
@Sev The Kings Fan From Montreal,
Actually, the question that Rich asked was, “Going into next season, what can you say to them to sharpen that focus, to make sure they’re focused on a new, even bigger goal?”
Lombardi actually answered that one right on point. He is going to give the Hamburger Hill speech to focus them on a bigger goal for next season.
[Reply]
Sev The Kings Fan From Montreal Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 3:17 pm
@Sydor25,
I stand corrected. I just re-read the initial Question. Thank you.
[Reply]
At some point, someone’s gonna have to tell this team a little bit about Glenallen Hill as well…
[Reply]
Howe 9 Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
@Marc Nathan,
That one made me laugh out loud. Good one.
[Reply]
Hey Dean… let’s talk about goals. As in, goals on the ice, and who’s going to score them with the team not making an effort to re-sign Frolov and you discounting signing any free agents.
[Reply]
DellaNooch Reply:
June 6th, 2010 at 10:38 am
@Yog S’loth, 121 players scored as much as Fro or more last season, quite a few are free agents not asking for 5+ mil, I’m sure we’ll be fine.
[Reply]
This comments page has become riddled with US history and war facts and is not why people come here. Everyone stop trying to one up each other with regards to the meaning of “hamburger hill” and lets talk kings hockey and how we feel about DL’s comments…
[Reply]
BakoCAkingsCondorsGuy Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
@Josh M,
I like that word, ‘riddled’…
Reminds me of a submachine gun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_submachine_gun
[Reply]
BakoCAkingsCondorsGuy Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
@Josh M.,
Besides…
Dean started it.
[Reply]
quisp Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
@Josh M,
It’s on-topic. Not only on-topic, but exactly on-topic. Dean Lombardi specifically references Vietnam and the battle for Hamburger Hill as a metaphor that’s germane in understanding where the Kings are in terms of goals. The comments section then proceeds to discuss the appropriateness of that metaphor. Seems kinda important.
[Reply]
Gregg Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
@quisp,
I agree! Besides, kids these days need a good history lesson. And not that lopsided, left-leaning, liberal-biased garbage they hear in school. And to throw my WWII 2-cents in, I think the reason they would have had to wait to storm Normandy had to do with the tide being just right since they were coming in on landing craft.
[Reply]
VanKingsFan Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 3:04 pm
@Gregg, soooo learning history from movies is a better way than through schools and legitimate educational sources?
USCG Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 1:45 am
@Gregg, hahaha good one van.
variable Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
@Josh M,
there’s a difference between being gratuitous and being pertinent…
i don’t see how the former applies here…
[Reply]
billanthony Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 7:06 pm
@variable,
“Gratuitous” it is. There’s just no comparing war with games.
[Reply]
Marc Reply:
June 5th, 2010 at 4:31 am
@Josh M, I disagree. I love learning about history.
[Reply]
Fabulous interview Rich.
I think he’s the best executive in the game. Perhaps a little biased…but We’re a lucky team to have him.
[Reply]
DellaNooch Reply:
June 6th, 2010 at 10:46 am
@nykingfan, I think you might be jumping the gun here, he’s working his way into the discuss with Lamrillo and Holland, but needs Cups to get there.
[Reply]
More Dean Lombardi talking a ton about nothing and really never giving anything but fluff. Oh, and yet again he has to talk about San Jose. Good job Dean, keep mentioning that you were a part of a franchise that is showing it is flawed and built with a bunch of underacheivers when it counts. You should somewhat start to distance yourself from that team now since it has been forever since you were there.
[Reply]
puck73 Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
@AzKing, Does that really bother you ? Tell you what, in all the years I have been a kings fan I have never had this much hope for the future. AS for San Jose, as you can see MR. Douglass Wilson has had a ton of success getting to the finals hasnt he, and he has tweaked the lineup several times. I would much rather be in the situation we are in right now then when DL took over here which was..A long way off ! But if you are into a quick fix and pissing away draft picks and money then I got the perfect organization for you to be a fan of..the Rangers, they love that sort of thing.
[Reply]
VanKingsFan Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
@puck73, Another hanger on to the Dave Taylor way of doing things. Splashy trade or FA signing, dissapointing season, no playoffs, no draft picks. Anger subsides slightly in the offseason with another splashy move, that ultimately fails… repeat, repeat.
[Reply]
puck73 Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
@VanKingsFan, As average as DT was it still pales in comparison to when Barry Melrose built the Kings in his image in 93-94 and 94-95. Remember when Zhitnik was accused of being a drunk and then traded away ? HORRIBLE ! Anyway I hope I get to meet you at the draft.
BakoCAkingsCondorsGuy Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
@puck73,
Thanks for reminding me about tomorrow and Draft Day tickets!
Gotta love that FREE price…
[Reply]
puck73 Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
@BakoCAkingsCondorsGuy, lets all find a way to meet outside Staples before the draft I think that would be awesome.
VanKingsFan Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 4:05 pm
@puck73, Wish I could be there my friend, unfortunately the Kings refuse to pay for my flight… and thus, I stay in Van City
[Reply]
So much for Mark Hardy, I guess nobody wants ta talk about him anymore…yesterdays news.
[Reply]
I think DL is referring to hamburger hill as to where the Kings are at now in their hockey progress. They need to keep the hill they battled for and work toward gaining further ground in the hockey war (like the Vietnam War).
DL wants the Kings to avoid the following scenario (paralleling the soldiers): They succeed in taking the hill with GREAT SACRIFICE, but instead of holding onto it (whatever the reason), the hill was NOT valued and given away; this would end up being devastating. The hill was valuable in psychological perception and progression (both in the war and in hockey), and when given away it turned the tide toward defeat. Even if the value of the hill or making the playoffs is limited and not the ultimate goal, don’t give away the momentum and be forced to start over in that sense. Let’s hold the hill and move on to greater victories!
[Reply]
BakoCAkingsCondorsGuy Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
@King John,
That’s why they make people read the books for themselves in High School and College… Everyone’s opinion has a value. I can see your point.
Hey RICH–
Can you point DL to this page and ask him if he has anything to add? It might be interesting, what he’d have to say…
[Reply]
King John Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
@BakoCAkingsCondorsGuy,
Yeah, reading DL’s comments again, he seems to think you have to start again, but this time hopefully with lessons learned. But Quisp’s recounting of the battle had me write what I wrote: don’t give up so easily what we’ve sacrificed for so far, but let’s build on that. Bako, your explanation earlier fits very well too.
[Reply]
Does DL need to meantion SAN JOSE in each one of his answers to every question Rich asks.
What has San Jose accomplished? I know they fired Dean Lombardi lol!
Maybe it was the Hamburger Hill speech that got San Jose so deep into the playoffs while Dean was there….oh wait…what?
[Reply]
BakoCAkingsCondorsGuy Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
@WWAMD,
Playoffs = DL’s hamburger hill…
Remember the time you were trying to slide that incredibly heavy furniture item across the floor by yourself, but once you got it moving it kept getting caught on the seam in the floor…
One of these days, one of DL’s teams is going to run the table and grab the Cup. Just gotta get over that seam in the ice…
[Reply]
Darrell Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
@WWAMD, Well, he could be talking about Philly! Or how long Chicago took to rebuild!
[Reply]
DellaNooch Reply:
June 6th, 2010 at 10:49 am
@WWAMD, For probably the 100th time, DL built SJ from a loser to a contender, that’s a good analogy…he is not responsible for their inability to win it all, as he has not been there in years.
His time in SJ is an EXCELLENT comparison for our team.
Now try to remember that and not ask that question AGAIN.
[Reply]
Look, DL is talking about the Hamburger Hill on the way to Vegas. It is about half way there. There’s your Carl’s, your Tommy’s, Del taco, In n Out all at the exit before you climb from Barstow to the border.
It is a great place to stop for awhile and refill the tanks, but if you stay too long you are going to get fat. And, you will nver make it to the top. So, enjoy it but don’t relax for too long or you will never make your ultimate goal, giving lots of money away (signing all the UFAs with rings to new contracts).
[Reply]
COOL! I get to use another Luc story from my lunch.
I was speaking to Luc about what makes Detroit so different. Here’s what he told me:
(Paraphrasing but pretty damn close to what he said) “It was crazy. When I got there, I expected Scotty Bowman to be like this mastermind of hockey greatness because of his legacy and all. I remember one of the first times being in the locker room with Scotty and he would just say, “OK, do this, do that, you all know your roles, lets go out there and just win the Cup.” He’s such a quiet guy, but he just makes sure you know that it’s your job out there to win. After that practice, the trainer comes up to me and says “Mr Robitaille, what kind of protein shake do you want?” Back then, we didn’t have all the stuff they have today and I’m just thinking and telling the guy “Whatever you have is fine”. The trainer looks at me and says “I will get you whatever brand of protein shake you want. You just name it and I will jump in my car right now and drive wherever I have to go to get it for you as long as you help us win the Stanley Cup.” I was completely amazed. This was just the trainer saying this. I figured if the training staff was saying this, the atmosphere here must be special. It was amazing. Every single person who worked in the Detroit organization spoke like this from the top, down. “Just help us win the Cup. That’s all we want”. I figured that we need to have that here and so I got that bottle of champagne in that case over there (Points to champagne) to remind each and every person here that every day we are here for one thing: To win that Cup. That mentality comes from Detroit. Do you remember when Detroit used to give away a car EVERY GAME just to get people into Joe Louis? Every game, they used to give away a brand new car to some lucky fan, just to get people in the building because they were so bad, you know. Unbelieveable. Now look at them. It’s the attitude. It’s always about winning the Cup.”
Reading Quisp’s quote about Detroit being the first dynasty since the Oilers were dismantled totally reminded me of Luc’s story. Had to share.
[Reply]
King John Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 6:18 pm
@Cynic,
Nice story…
[Reply]
IMHO
Hamburger Hill = The Cup.
Only one goal – win the Cup.
Nothing else matters.
Everything short of winning the Cup is failure.
Every year, every team starts at the bottom.
[Reply]
I’m glad Lombardi thinks better than he talks, because he is truly the King of Gibberish.
[Reply]
DellaNooch Reply:
June 6th, 2010 at 10:50 am
@rick, I wouldn’t go so far as to say gibberish, though he definitely rambles….would you rather have the pre-fabricated answers given in every other sports interview that means absolutely nothing, or this food for thought?
[Reply]
rick Reply:
June 6th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
@DellaNooch, Understand what you are saying – but, personally, I don’t get a huge amount of food for thought out of many of his answers. Just an observation, though – when the day is done, who really cares about the quality of his answers so long as he takes this team to the promised land? I just get a kick out of people who manage to see “Great Learnings” in his comments….
[Reply]
Off-topic but worth a comment.
Here, here to the greatest humanitarian-sports figures to ever walk the earth, Mr. Wooden. May your star shine as bright in the sky as it did on this planet.
Cynic,
Your lunch stories have been outstanding. Thanks for sharing.
[Reply]
jet Reply:
June 4th, 2010 at 10:24 pm
@Duckhunter, Agree with you on Wooden. He was one of the people in this world worth looking up to.
[Reply]
Am I the only one that actually learned quite a bit from this comments page? Quisp and Bako, in particular. Thanks guys
[Reply]
This was a fantastic series Rich. Dean Lombardi is one of the best interviews in the league. This series really gave me an insight into how his mind works.
[Reply]
No new posts for a couple days, you alright Rich? The crack addicts are restless…it would interesting to see the prospects we could draft at 19 and start that discussion…I’ve been looking around the internet but can’t find much discussion on anything outside of the top 5.
[Reply]
I’m I the only one who finds it confusing that the starting time of two different championship games start at the same time?
I personally don’t care for the war analogy’s. The ultimate sacrifice in war, and in sports, are far from similar.
Quisp is also correct, if you know the true history of “Hamburger Hill” the comparison is silly. “Hamburger Hill is what NOT to do. It’s not a “feel good” story of team work and success, it’s a story of incompetence and tragedy.
By the way Quisp, his name was James Stagg and he worked on Eisenhower’s staff. He had canceled the landings twice before giving the green light on the the 6th
[Reply]
rick Reply:
June 6th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
@Duckhunter, Agree totally with you. You cheapen what can happen to people in wartime when you compare it to what can happen in a sporting event.
[Reply]
quisp Reply:
June 6th, 2010 at 9:08 pm
@rick et al re war v. sports –
Well, there’s a first hurdle, which is deciding whether a war analogy is appropriate in a sports context. My feeling is that (since war metaphors are rampant in sports writing) the more general the analogy, the less objectionable. For example, “Holmstrom is down there in the trenches” = fine. “Not since [specific slaughter from recent history] has a team been taken so by surprise…” = offensive. Now, specific slaughter or battle from distant past…gradually that becomes inoffensive. e.g. Bull Run, Valley Forge, etc.
The second hurdle is, you have to be sure that the metaphor means what you think it means.
[Reply]
VanKingsFan Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 9:06 am
@quisp,
This stuff gets really over analyzed when there arent many updates from Rich over a weekend lol.
I think the War references are great, and the fact that in War the sacrifice is so enormous, and the challenges SO great, this is what makes them perfect for sports analogies. Im not saying they are the same thing, but you add some intensity to the battle on the court, ice, field etc. when you talk of them like they are a literal battle.
Why is is that slaughters in the distant past are not offensive to talk about and ones from the recent past are?
http://www.tsn.ca/draftcentre/feature/?id=11963
Those are the top 30 draft prospects. If the draft goes according to that list, we would be getting Evgeny Kuznetsov.
I hope we somehow manage to trade up to get either Jeff Skinner or Nino Niederreiter. We have the defensive prospects to do so, I believe. I would also be happy drafting Emerson Etem.
[Reply]
VanKingsFan Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 9:02 am
@markisonfire, El Nino will go in the top 10 I think, no chance of trading up that high.
Skinner could fall… but I doubt he will go past #15.
This is the great thing about the draft, its such a gamble. I want all the people who rag on DL for not taking Tyler Myers to step up and make the draft pick prediction right now and see how well they do without hindsight.
[Reply]
hey rich -
did you decide to skip the reader-submitted questions?
[Reply]
jet Reply:
June 6th, 2010 at 10:11 pm
@quisp, DL would only give Rich 6 hours.
[Reply]
Getting that “respect” in the regular season makes all the difference in the world, and gets you over the hump in the playoffs. If you cruise through the season on teams’ “b-list” of opponents, you’re gonna surprise teams and not draw the heat you otherwise will. Now they’ll draw the heat, and if they respond, they’ll be a step closer to being ready for the playoffs this coming season. If they don’t respond, they probably won’t make the playoffs anyway.
[Reply]
The Horror. The Horror.
DL is off his rocker, and his minnions have descended into madness.
I think “Apocalypse Now” is the much more apt analogy here.
[Reply]
jet Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 6:38 pm
@Cristobal,
Welcome back to the same ol team you use to laugh at.
[Reply]
DL should worry less about goals and worry about coaching staff.
We got one in court
And Murray is not the answer.
In the news today. Guy Boucher has been hired as the Tampa Bay coach.
I’ve been posting here for 2 years about how we should hire Guy Boucher.
Now remember how bad Tampa Bay was these past few years. This year they will have a similar team as last year, but NOW with a GREAT up and coming coach. Tampa will contend for the Cup now because of that coach. And you will all see. This is what Great GM’s recognize. Yzerman has already done more then Dean in his first week as a GM.
Dean is still daydreaming about his days in San Jose and Philly. Soo much so that he tries to bring it all back to LA.
I’ve posted 2 years ago that Dean wanted Patrick Marleau to complete his fantasy. Patrick Marleau is going to be yet ANOTHER flop for LA when he comes here.
So there you have it, DEAN has failed us again this offseason by, keeping current coach and going after FA Patrick Marleau.
We need Kovi to make this team a contender. LOOOOOOOK at Kovi’s stats and tell me he’s not the real deal. DL will probably pay Marleau 1 or 2 mill less then what Kovi will get and Marleau will never coming close to Kovi’s stats. Marlaeu best career season is Kovi’s worst.
[Reply]