Here’s a follow-up on yesterday’s post about Oscar Moller. Even if, as expected, Moller starts next season playing professionally in Sweden, it’s almost certain that the Kings will retain his rights. Moller, according to reports overseas, is expected to sign a two-year contract with a team in Sweden. In terms of the NHL, Moller is a restricted free agent this summer.
In order to retain Moller’s NHL rights, the Kings will need only to extend a qualifying offer to Moller before the June 27 deadline. The qualifying offer includes a salary with a 10-percent increase from last season. If the Kings extend the offer and Moller does not sign — the likely scenario — Moller would remain property of the Kings for the next few years (until he is eligible — at age 27 — to become an unrestricted free agent). The asterisk to all this, as posted yesterday, is that Moller’s contract with a Swedish team is expected to include an out clause, which would allow Moller to leave Sweden and return to the NHL.
Kind of like a future considerations for Moller. 2 years for Moller to remain the Kings property without actually spending any money. Almost gaurantees we won’t see Moller till he’s 27, 28 years old. That’s when he comes back and burns us with another team.
[Reply]
Cricket Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
@Dominick,
How does a 22 year-old signing a 2 year contract guarantee we won’t see him until his late 20′s? Or did I miss the jaded Kings fan sarcasm? Sorry if I did!
[Reply]
Dominick Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 1:25 pm
@Cricket, Yes it was sarcasm. He hasn’t signed anything either, which wouldn’t surprise me.
[Reply]
Cricket Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 2:45 pm
@Dominick,
Cool. Figured as much. Though I know we’re all hoping not to get Moulsened again on this one down the line, which is about as sure fire a Moulsen as we could have in the system at this time.
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out
[Reply]
joa6000 Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 2:04 pm
@David, really… why is that? why so much hate for this guy?
[Reply]
quisp Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 8:03 pm
@David,
Just goes to show you, there’s one of every opinion, no matter how arbitrary.
[Reply]
Does this count against the salary cap?
[Reply]
Dominick Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 12:46 pm
@m_and_m,
No.
[Reply]
perfect senario for us. Have some Surströmming for me Oscar…..ok maybe just for you!
[Reply]
Howie in China Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 6:39 pm
@Ravens, Ahhh….Surströmming.
[Reply]
This all assumes that the expiring CBAs magic age of 27 as the UFA eligibity date carries over to the next CBA.
Either way, good luck Oscar, wherever you end up playing.
[Reply]
In the swedish article posted on this site yesterday Moller was quoted as saying,”It will be fun playing in a skating, attacking kind of hockey.” He also said he wanted all interested teams in Sweden to know he was not giving up his dream of playing in the NHL.
[Reply]
King John Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 7:35 pm
@Crown Royal,
That would be fun for us fans too.
[Reply]
ok how about this (yikes I can’t wait) with the Rangers desperatly needing a back up goalie who can become a true # in short time, plus the likely return of Immonen and Jagr, how about Bernie for Gaborik?
[Reply]
DesertKing Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 1:25 pm
@Ravens,
I hear you, but Gaborik is out injured more than he is on the ice. With our current style of play and being in the Western Conference, I don’t think Gaborik could put together more than a month or so of ice time without some type of injury. Now, what about NJ? Brodeur is in serious decline, their payroll is completely out-of-control, so would we consider trading Bernier to NJ for Parise after NJ completes a sign-and trade agreement with him? I am sure that NJ would want more than an outstanding young goalie with a minimal cap hit, so who would we be willing to include?
[Reply]
Dominick Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 1:30 pm
@DesertKing, Before the speculation commenses, we can’t unload unwanted contracts like Smyth, or Greene, because New Jersey is up against the cap, and will most likely be looking to dump salaries themselves, more than take any new ones on.
[Reply]
Eric Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 1:55 pm
@Dominick,
Greene is not an unwanted contract.
Bernier and the Russian young center
Dominick Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 2:04 pm
@Eric,
Whenever there’s speculation, fans always try to include contracts that they don’t want on the Kings roster. As if some other team is going to take 10 mill in contracts, and give us a sniper and a low cap hit for it.
I’m just trying to beat everyone to the punch.
Token Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 2:12 pm
@Dominick, Funny you say that cuz once we ink Doughty, we have less cap space than the Devils.
Everyone seems to forget that the Devils already dumped a whole bunch of cap last trade deadline.
Brownkingsfan Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 2:16 pm
@Dominick, I’m not going to argue about this, but Greene was voted by his own team mates as unsung hero of the Kings. I personally love that he’s a King. Nuff said!
Dominick Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 2:20 pm
@Token,
Do you really see the Devils taking any of our hihger payed players for draft picks and a sniper? or even a sniper and a veteran with a low cap hit? If it happens, salary will go both ways at the least. So speculation should be along those principles. Not completely one sided in the Kings favor. That’s not speculation, that’s a pipe dream.
Token Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 5:25 pm
@Dominick, Don’t see the Devils picking up the phone let alone doing a deal with the Kings. Too soon to last summers clusterfunk.
I went on record long ago; DL will not trade much this summer. No cap space. He will hang on to any cap available for next spring. AEG was never a cap ceiling outfit.
Besides, we have a good roster after we drop the UFAs, sign the RFAs and one of Lokti or Schenn makes the big club.
Dominick Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 8:17 am
@Token,
That is the most likely scenario I see happening this summer.
Michael J. Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 9:10 am
@Dominick, I seriously doubt the Kings would part with Bernier, or Quick, at this point in either of their careers. IF JB is the next Brodeur, would you want to be the team that trades him away?
I think that dealing Bernier at this point might compare to the Hornets trading away the rights to Kobe for Vlade.
Ravens Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 1:43 pm
@DesertKing, yeah you would have to probably have to include a top prospect or Simmonds to land Parise
[Reply]
FKA PakiFro Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 2:18 pm
@Ravens, Lokti, Simmonds, and a Jonathon?
Token Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 2:19 pm
@Ravens, If we wanted to, we could have picked up Zherdev off waivers right after the trade deadline. Why on earth would we want a broken Gaborik via trade when we can pick up enigma bargain basement talent for nothing.
You can file the Gaborik for Bernier in the ludicrous dream folder.
[Reply]
Dominick Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
@BrownKingsfan,
Nothing to argue, I’m not offering up Greene.
[Reply]
number 6 Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 2:29 pm
@Ravens,
Hi Ravens. Just wanted to let you know if you didn’t already that I’m living in nyc. So I can tell you based on the buzz that Gaborik was not one of Torts favorites – whatever that means. If he can’t satisfy Torts, imagine what he would look like on a TM coached team. Hey, don’t miss your backcheck Gabs.
Not that one shouldn’t be fully aware of defensive responsibilities but take it from me, he didn’t have a good year last year. He disappeared. Only had 24 goals I believe. That’s less than Brownie without the grit. You’d be very (one would be) very very very mistaken to give up Bernier who WOULD come back to haunt us, for a guy who scored 24 goals last year – didn’t play very well and has a history of injuries.
[Reply]
408KingsFan Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 5:06 pm
@Ravens, Gaborik would be our next Penner
[Reply]
CB14 Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 5:11 pm
@408KingsFan, Only he would be in shape, yet still not playing hard just like Penner.
[Reply]
KC23 Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 3:34 pm
@Ravens, Most likely situation I see is Bernier going to Philly for Carter.
[Reply]
WTF, Quick and Moulsin on NHL live, their wives are sisters LOL
[Reply]
Dominick Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 1:19 pm
@Niko,
They’ve been connected by the sisters ever since Moulson was playing for Manchester. Rich did a few articles about the possible banter between the 2, and who has bragging rights a while back.
[Reply]
FKA PakiFro Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
@Niko,
Here’s the interview.
http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=114764
[Reply]
Quick and brother in law Matt Moulson on NHLN live right now
[Reply]
SLIM Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 2:04 pm
@Ravens,
I’m watching it..there quite the duo..
Their wives are the real competitors..
Wish they were still together in some ways..
[Reply]
this is a good move for Moller. let him be at home, work on his game, grow a bit and develop. my only concern is that he won’t learn the defensive side of the game playing in Sweden. but i have to think he’ll be back with another year or two of seasoning.
in some ways there is less pressure on him in Sweden. here it’s always about trying to impress the Kings, get called up and play well. now he can just go there for a year and just play. not worry about call ups and being sent down, playing top minutes in Manchester and then playing bottom-6 with the Kings.
the Kings will qualify him and we still have plenty of time to wait. if some of the other kids develop then maybe Moller can be traded. plus, guys like Stoll and Smyth only have a year left and those spots will open up.
[Reply]
Like I said yesterday.. Who cares? Moller has had his chances (many of them) and he hasn’t done anything. I was hoping they would trade him, but no one else wants him…
[Reply]
Brownkingsfan Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 2:12 pm
@kingshockeyguy, Well said! This whole thing with Moller falls under the “who gives a crap” category. Let him go and wish him well. He hasn’t done anything here that has been season changing, or that any other young prospect hasn’t done. If we can keep him without sacrificing the cap, cool. I don’t hate him, but I don’t see him as a critical asset either.
[Reply]
Bobby Scribe Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 3:50 pm
@kingshockeyguy, Had his chances…like Moulson had his, and Boyle and Purcell. Dean Lombardi and Terry Murray thank you for your patronage. As for the rest of us, we just shake our head at statements like this. We have given away 3 skilled offensive players in 3 seasons and then complain about offense. Why? Because they didn’t “fit”? No. Because Terry Murray’s system stifles skill. You think it’s coincidence that Purcell is near the top of the league in playoff points or that his point total in this regular season would have put him fourth on the Kings behind Kopitar, Williams and Brown? Or that Moulson leaves and becomes a multi year 30 goal scorer or Boyle became a critical part of the Rangers’ offense scoring 20 goals? I don’t know what will happen will Moller but to claim he had his chances (many of them) He played 13 games this season and 34 last. That is not having his chances, much less many of them. During that time, he has been taken away from his natural position (center) and, far worse, expected to play a grinding and checking game, as if that even remotely suits his game. Might as well turn Dustin Brown into a center or Kopitar into a defenseman. It doesn’t matter. Believe what you want to believe.
[Reply]
snbrdsummit Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 5:18 pm
@Bobby Scribe,
This is well said.
[Reply]
Osaka Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 5:31 pm
@Bobby Scribe, Moller is no Moulson. Moller is not an NHL player, too small. Now before you name every Marty St. Louis in the league I didn’t say they were too small, I said Moller is too small.
If Terry Murray is such a horrible coach why does he have the best winning percentage of any Kings coach ever?
[Reply]
PP Anybody? Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 6:23 pm
@Osaka, WHy does TM have the best winning percentage of any Kings coach ever? That’s easy. The SHOOTOUT. Take away our shootout wins last year and the year before, his winning percentage goes waaay down. Most of our other coaches played with ties being apart of the winning percentage numbers, so the figures are stacked in TM’s favor. So ixnay on that argumentay.
Osaka Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 7:10 pm
@Osaka, Good point on the shootout, I give you that.
kingshockeyguy Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 6:02 pm
@Bobby Scribe, Moller sucks and you know what?? Lokti will be the same player and will never make it. Both players are always one hit away from a season ending injury.
[Reply]
quisp Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 4:29 pm
@kingshockeyguy,
You have spoken. Neither Moller nor Loktionov are NHL players. The thing is, we’ll see soon enough how smart you are.
Player-X Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 11:22 am
@Bobby Scribe, complaining about Murray as coach is what makes me shake my head and wonder… This is gonna be long, too, another wall of X
Moller does not have the technique needed to win a puck, or hold a puck in the corner. It’s not his size alone; it’s a lack of technique and strength. And I feel like he did have good chances, the spotting him “out of natural position” was done after many opportunities at his natural position and actually prove the point that the Kings did a lot to try to fit him in. He wasn’t good enough as a center, and certainly not good enough in Murray’s system at center.
Now, regarding the “stifling” offensive system Murray uses; let’s actually define the system and see if we can even agree as to just what the system is.
It is a possession-based, controlled breakout, as opposed to the “quick-up” to any available man with speed, for example, that Crawford liked. Why? I think it is because (1) it makes for a safer, lower turnover style of hockey suitable to younger players, and (2) establishes poise and calm across the whole team and defines a critical mental aspect which helps younger players.
The controlled breakout incorporates a forward, the center usually, circling from below the goal line to create speed so that when he takes the breakout pass he is at speed and also has lots of time to see the ice in front of him. The center evades the first guy and then looks for options, to either pass or rush.
A pass can go to a winger with outside speed or to a weak-side winger either stopped at the blue line or moving laterally across the blue line. If either the center or the winger do not see a rush opportunity, they dump it in and go for retrieval with two men converging and the third staying as “high F3.” If the puck is stopped in the corner, the F3 is allowed to attack for possession, but not get trapped, but there should not be any prolonged time with all 3 forwards down so low. One of them (the weak side guy, the guy farthest from the puck battle, should move out to F3.
Once retrieval succeeds, and possession is established, all 3 forwards are involved in a deep cycle, interchanging positions. A shot is supposed to be generated from this cycle, then the others crash the net for a rebound, or else one guy has already peeled of and is net-front, screening and looking for the shot to get a tip or rebound.
The Kings also like (as all teams do) to cycle the puck and then go low to high for the defenseman to get a shot. This is another way to work off the cycle.
I think that sums up the offensive system adequately for discussion. Yes, there is more to it, and I might have missed something big, but basically that is how I see the King’s system.
What more can they do? What would qualify as a non-stifling system?
The Kings could try to rush it in more. If they succeed, great, but with systems like Tampa and Vancouver, the rush is exactly what they try to negate, and do so successfully. That could be the simplest actual definition of the playoff style of hockey: negate the rush and win the corners. You can bemoan this, but it is simple fact that the defense tightens up in the playoffs, teams deny the rush and play more conservatively, in general and in the majority of play. So yes, Murray says take the rush if it is there, but you are gonna need more than just the rush to win.
The Kings could have their defensemen jump in more on the rush and in the early zone-time, the puck-battle time. They could try cross-corner dump=ins with a d-man joining the forwards, but this aggression is also risky, in that you could trap three guys low, plus one of the guys staying back is a forward facing the potential out-numbered attack from a failed retrieval. So you could be more aggressive, but more risky, and that is not the meta-game playoff philosophy.
The Kings could try to pinch the strong-side boards more, which I wish they would do, but that comes from a complex read of possession and position in the puck battle, and if you don’t have a guy already moving toward center to cover the pinching defenseman, then that decision to pinch can come too fast for a forward to recognize and react in time to cover it up. Detroit sends d-men pinching on ring-arounds all the way to the half-boards, and the Kings do this sometimes too but not as much, but in fact that pinch gives time for the forwards to prepare for it, and almost always a forward peels off to cover the potential turnover and breakaway. So, pinching more would be good, but only in limited times and actually only extends possession, but does not really open up scoring chances directly.
The Kings could move their weak-side guys in back-door, and that would be more creative offensively, and more aggressive. I think the Kings will do this more, and I do not think Murray is against it, otherwise he wouldn’t have heaped so much praise on Doughty when he had his 4 point game against San Jose. So there is an area of enhanced offense this is now missing, but it is not fair to say that Murray is against it; the Kings are just still developing in that way.
My main point is that Murray has a system that is comfortable for younger players, that is effective in today’s game, that is effective in the playoffs, and that is being executed by some very young talent that is only now reaching the prime years of their careers. No, they aren’t kids anymore, that is not an excuse, but neither are they grizzled veteran’s that have seen it all and know the limits of their own talents.
Blaming Murray is easy, but mostly the personnel decision you decry are Lombardi’s work. Overall, I am happy with Lombardi. He’s not perfect, and nobody is, but I am pleased with the improvement and I look forward to another year spent galvanizing the many facets fo the Kings game into one shiny steel winning machine.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts, I’m sure I missed some things the Kings could do to open it up, it will be interesting to hear your take.
[Reply]
snbrdsummit Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
@Player-X,
What you describe would be a very controlled game and I agree would be effective. But I don’t see the Kings doing that.
I see constant dumping into the offensive zone and a mad rush of players to pin the puck to the boards. There’s nothing calm and collected about their offensive efforts and the Power Play is a clear example of it. We turn over the puck constantly and quite often can’t develop a shot because we’ve pinned the puck on the boards for a significant portion of the power play or have turned it over due to the risk of dumping. Worse yet, we’re constantly overloading one side with all of our offensive players and allowing defenses to easily cover us.
Players do not open to space on the ice to allow the type of progression you describe. They skate right next to their defenders with bad body position for which to receive passes. Someone is not telling them this because they don’t recognize the mistake. Therefore, the puck gets dumped more often than not. These same problems kill our ability to cycle the puck.
Incidentally, this is one of the reasons I really like Moller. Despite his size, he touches the puck often because he understands how to open up. Furthermore, he makes good reads and is able to make good distributions because he is looking for truly open players instead of forcing the puck to someone with bad body position. He’s cerebral and can think through the game. Players with this ability excel in the NHL, Moulson and Purcell had these same qualities and we dumped them.
Beyond that, your offensive strategy would be good for drawing defenders off balance and cycling on man-advantages, but this is too advanced for a team that doesn’t open to space or see the ice well because they are stuck on the boards.
We agree that your assessment of a sound offensive strategy would be productive for this team. However, where I think we disagree (and I could be wrong) is the implementation of the strategy. It’s one thing to say I intend to be rich, but if in my implementation I’m not acheiving my goals, I’m poor. Consequently, your system and Murrays system differ. Instead of working on the fundamentals to such a strategy, Murray swaps lines and the players go on making the same mistakes over and over. This is where Murray fails. This is why I say his system stifles. It doesn’t acheive the intent. His system is effectively dump & chase, pound the boards, and garbage collection in front of the net.
I see moments of brilliance where the players seem to get it for small intervals. In those moments, we look like world beaters. We don’t need more/different players, we have the talent now. I wish we had a coach who could troubleshoot and give us more of those.
Dominick Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
@Player-X,
Zone penetration always leads to the boards. The f3 sits high in a support role, not an attacking role. It’s too safe. The cycle is the end result of the Kings forcheck. As long as the opposition floods the area between the dots, the Kings can’t manufacture goals from anywhere but the points, with players attempting to get net presence. The net presence is nuetralized by the Kings themselves by constantly giving up position, to circle down low, or to the f3 to support the cycle again.
How many times have you seen Kings players beat a player off the boards, strait to the front of the net with a give and go play? How about a player driving strait to the front, from the corner? Classic example, Simmers had a beauty during the season, but they were few and far in between. It doesn’t happen because as soon as the player in the cycle doesn’t have the puck, he circles to be in a position to recieve another pass, and keep the cycle going.
East/West passes are not made between the dots either, because Murray is too afraid of them being picked off, yet all top offensive teams play that way. You have to force them to the boards to stop them. The Kings go there willingly, and all their offense originates from there in, on the forcheck.
Your breakdown of the system is awsome, and I admire your knowlege of the game. I think your correct on what the Kings do, but the end result is what I am focused on here.
Player-X Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 4:41 pm
@snbrdsummit-
Thanks for the response, I’ve read your thinking a couple fo times and have some views. I do appreciate the tone you speak with, very clear, not at all insulting or argumentative, just a good, fun debate. Thanks for that.
Most of what your talking about seems directed to power play time, where we agree. That should be when the Kings use the open ice to make the plays they can’t make, or aren’t used to trying, when 5 on 5.
As far as the wingers skating close to their checks with bad body position (which I took to mean moving thru center toward o-zone entry) I do see that sometimes, too, but this is how opponents play the game nowadays. The Kings do it to other teams, also, it is just the result of a tactic of having the first fore-checker in center ice taking away that pass. If Dustin Brown sees a defenseman bringing the puck up the ice, he focuses on the potential recipient, not the puck carrier, and skates with the guy. It is more exaggerated on the penalty kill, but the same thing happens 5 on 5, too. that’s why you now see the drop pass that San Jose, Vancouver and Detroit use, for entry on the power play, because there is a shadow on the winger with speed. They develop speed by drawing the shadow and then dropping the puck to a guy coming from behind. 5 on 5, it’s hard to make a rush, because teams are usually back waiting. For me, the fact is true, it’s tough to find the open winger, but I attribute it to just defensive system, not a lack in our personnel or system.
I just hang onto those moments of brilliance you mentioned. I look for more consistency from a young team that is able to do things now sporadically, and for ling stretches, but do not quite have it all locked in yet for a full season. The win streaks against top teams on the road the last two Februarys are what make me confident that the team, and the system, are capable and effective. The drop-offs, the losing streaks, were definite negatives, and large ones at that, but even so the Kings were good enough long enough and often enough to still average 100 points over the two seasons, and that ain’t all that bad. If the Kings get better, which I expect them to continue doing, than the league better look the f out.
Finally, as far as Moller, you describe only his good points, and we just have to agree to disagree whether those good exceed the bad.
Salute.
@Dominick-
Hey bud, thanks for the response and th4e compliment. I was really hoping you would be one of the people that saw it and responded, much respect back at you for sure. I don’t think you and I are really that far apart; you are not calling for any radical change in the attack, but more of an enhancement from the start point of an established cycle. I mean, we agree on the system, but you want more from the cycle once established (cross-ice passes, diagonal passes and tight give-and-goes) but so do I, I also want more.
My thinking is that the game today forces board battles, unavoidably, and the Kings have learned to dominate in board battles for the most part, against any team. But, as we have both said, there needs to be a phase two once that battle for possession is won, and that requires an attack on net.
So, when I said,
“The Kings could move their weak-side guys in back-door, and that would be more creative offensively, and more aggressive… So there is an area of enhanced offense this is now missing, but it is not fair to say that Murray is against it; the Kings are just still developing in that way,”
that was meant to say that I think the Kings need to improve, that they have improved some over the previous year and that I expect the Kings to continue to improve. I think Murray does teach it and encourage it, and that it will lead to more goals.
Really, as far as the sort of dead-end game the Kings sometimes show in the boards, I don’t blame Murray, I don’t blame the players we have now and I don’t blame the players that were let go and later found their game.
I see the Kings developing their offensive vocabulary, if you will, or adding pages to the playbook one could say, and I just feel like it’s still a bunch of very young guys approaching the prime of their careers with much time to grow into the smart veteran player needed to perform the high octane offensive zone play WITHOUT losing the defensive game.
Dominick Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 7:33 pm
@Player-X, Your correct. That is what I’m looking for. The attack on net is what is really missing. During the season I tied to focus on when the Kings established possesion, and if those possesions resulted on a play to the net, and the results would scare you. Large numbers of possesions resulted in continuing the cycle for no reason, and waiting for the obvious play to develope.
There’s no instinctive movement to take the puck to the middle, or drive to the net (even with a wide open lane). Very seldom do you see tick tack toe passing plays, designed to spread out the defense and catch the goalie out of position. Every once in a while I would like to see the Kings throw it to the net from the wing when they establish net presence, instead of throwing it to the point for a onetimer.
Like I’ve stated before, I am willing to give TM the benefit of the doubt, and support him next season. I just want to see a little more results with the cycle ending up on net, instead of along the boards.
snbrdsummit Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 5:17 pm
@kingshockeyguy,
Wow… Really? How does scoring 26 points in 87 games with 11 minutes of on-ice time per game constitute “hasn’t done anything”? Have you looked at Trevor Lewis’ stats?
Honestly, I think the whole referendum on his weight lacks any credibility. Gretzky was never a hitter and was lighter than Moller was when entering the league. If Moller can score 26 points in the duration of a typical season while getting knocked off the puck and spending 4th line time on the ice, can you imagine the upside to this player if he was stuck on a productive line and continued building up his body?
I expect more out of him… I think we all do. However, I’m impressed by his play and hope I see him play more in a Kings uniform.
You ask who cares? I do. He score points and this team needs more of it.
[Reply]
Osaka Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 5:46 pm
@snbrdsummit, Trevor Lewis is a very good defensive forward, is a key penalty killer. Moller doesn’t have that kind of defensive skill, he needs to be a top 6 forward to be effective. He doesn’t come close to being a top six forward and the main issue is his size. I am not saying Gretzky or Flury were too small, I am saying Moller is too small. Gretzky, St. Louis, Flury, Jason Blake…… all have something that helps them overcome the size issue. There isn’t anything wrong with Moller’s skill set, just nothing that helps him overcome his lack of size. He plays small. Everyone points to Marty St. Louis because he is the exception. For every one St Louis that makes it there are a thousand that don’t. Moller doesn’t have that something special one in a thousand gift. Not yet anyways. Let’s hope in a couple years lightning strikes.
[Reply]
BobKnob Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 11:33 am
@snbrdsummit,
Okay, lettuce be reality here. You just compared Moller to Gretzky. That is not how this works.
[Reply]
snbrdsummit Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 11:47 am
@BobKnob,
Actually, the same exact things that are being said about Moller were said about Gretzky when he entered the league (i.e. too small, gets knocked off the puck, etc…).
Will Moller be as good as Gretzky, most likely not and I’m not suggesting that. But comparisons can be drawn to say that success has nothing to do with size. It’s all about the evolution of the player and whether they can overcome their shortcomings.
That is exactly how it works.
BobKnob Reply:
May 21st, 2011 at 1:31 pm
@snbrdsummit,
Gretzky was a phenomenal player. Moller is not. He is a good player, and I think he is an NHL player.
If you want to point to Gretzky (or any other exceptional player in history) and say such and such is possible or one should do this or that, you are going to end up rationalizing literally any point of view, because all these great players were different in some way, played the game different, or trained off-ice differently (or basically not at all in the case of Gretz).
Moller is not Gretzky. Moller gets thrown around too easily all the damn time. He has good hands, is creative, can snipe, etc. But he still has aspects of his game he needs to improve on, and one of those is staying on his damn feet and not getting moved off the puck all the time. Criticizing his size and physical play is a perfectly valid thing to do.
btw, Gretzky didn’t get knocked around like Moller because he learned how to roll off checks, and also he was better at avoiding them. I don’t think anyone is suggesting Moller needs to be a grinder.
Christian T Reply:
May 18th, 2011 at 7:43 pm
@kingshockeyguy, Maybe I am biased because I am a Moller fan but I guess the slight in the playoffs might have had something to do with this. Moller plays well in his game and then get’s scratched for a player that was out for the entire season. The bad part is Parse hadn’t even proven he could make the lineup. Another of TM’s great moves. I think we will see that Moller dos have something special in the future and hopefully that will be with the Kings. Some players mature later than others and non of our players excel offensively on the 3rd and 4th lines. TM is D coach first remember that. Maybe we can get a elite player and he will change that style a bit. We’ll see.
[Reply]
Just saw Quick and Matt Moulson on NHL Live…it was a really good interview.
[Reply]
Quick seems way more impressed with Luongo than Niemi from what it seemed
[Reply]
All this talk about a minor league caliber player. Is there really nothing else to talk about?
[Reply]
Quisp Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 9:26 am
@Kings x,
why do you say he’s minor league caliber?
[Reply]
good riddance, this guy is undersized and after he gets hit once hes nowhere to be seen for the rest of the game, just another open roster spot to put a legit nhl caliber player in our lineup
[Reply]
Quisp Reply:
May 20th, 2011 at 9:25 am
@Weekes22,
open roster spot. yes, i see.
where, exactly?
if there was an open roster spot, moller wouldn’t be signing to play in Sweden.
[Reply]
I’m a Kings fan and I have hope he would have started in LA however he has agreed to a contract with my hometeam, Skellefteå AIK, her in Sweden and I’m not to sad that he has done that since he is a good player.
[Reply]
Not sure the Kings didn’t drop the ball here? There is a lesson here to be learned and that is that the Kings turned him pro too early. Moller should’ve gone back for his last year of junior to get stronger. When Smyth finally retires and Stoll slows down there will be some spots open,hopefully Moller can put together some solid seasons in Skelleftea and come back. The Kings are loaed at Centre and RW and Moller plays both those positions. Moller has outgrown the AHL and needs a better challenge. He needs to play big minutes and not 6-9 which likely would’ve happened in LA had he stayed. Good Luck to Oscar Moller(9). Hopefully he’ll return to LA in 1-2 years time!!!
[Reply]