Forum answers II

Here’s the second set of today’s Open Forum questions and answers…

—–

Hockeyfanb4Gretzky asked: Any chance of getting a charter bus for the frozen fury in vegas.If there is a good response I will try to put something together.

Answer: If you (or anyone else) is interested in organizing this, I’ll certainly be glad to help you promote it on the blog as an option for people to get to Vegas. Sounds like it would be a fun thing. Let me know…

—–

Tim from the OC asked: Will you have a autograph booth at this years Hockey Fest? :) Will you attend the hockey fest this year?

Answer: Ha! I seriously, seriously doubt that I’ll have an autograph booth. As for Hockey Fest, it seems as though it’s going to be scaled back quite a bit this year. Right now, it’s listed as a one-day event (on Sept. 11) at the practice facility in El Segundo. I don’t have any more information than that, but there’s a good chance that I’ll come check it out, yes.

—–

KOHO asked: What was the overall consensus from the NHL in having the Draft in Los Angeles? Was it a success? If so, in what ways did they impress? If not, what could we have done better?

Answer: It probably depends on who you ask, and what they’re basing their opinions on, but I really didn’t hear any complaints at all. Everyone got nice weather, and the brand-new hotels and eating/drinking establishments at L.A. Live made for a good atmosphere. The draft sort of runs on auto-pilot, so unless the phones didn’t work at the draft tables or there was a lack of hotel rooms, etc., I don’t really know that there would be any reason for excessive praise or complaint. People seemed to get a kick out of the Kings-Ducks cheering/booing stuff, but other than that, there didn’t seem to be a dramatic reaction. Everything seemed to be well organized and free of glitches.

—–

Tompa asked: Is Johan Fransson expected to compete for an NHL spot? Is there even enough room in Manchester for him?

Answer: It’s hard for me to say, given that I wouldn’t recognize him if he walked in my front door right now, but the fact that the Kings signed him, coupled with the fact that he’s an older prospect (25) who has been playing against professionals in Sweden for the past eight years, would lead me to believe that the Kings would consider him worthy of a serious look. Apparently, at least one other team (Pittsburgh) had serious interest in him as well, but it’s quite difficult to predict how a European player’s game will translate to North America. As for Manchester, it’s a simplistic answer, but there will be enough room for him if it’s clear that that’s where he belongs, relative to the other prospects. It’s going to be very difficult, until we see everyone in training camp, to predict which defensemen will end up where, but that’s also going to be one of the most fun aspects of camp.

—–

nykingfan asked: Do you think DL and the Kings feel it’s more important to get a top 6 forward or a top 4 D’men? Other than Kovy, who would you think the Kings would have interest in as far as top 6 forwards (free agents, not trades)? Also, would the Kings consider making an offer to a RFA or are they worried that by doing so, they leave themselves open to poachers?

Answers: 1) If they could only get one, in terms of a long-term solution, I believe they would consider it much more important to get a top-six forward. 2) If we’re talking about more than a short-term contract, I don’t think there are any free-agent forwards who would be in the same conversation (now that Patrick Marleau is off the table). Might they consider giving a guy such as Ray Whitney a short-term deal? Perhaps, but that’s in a much, much different category than Kovalchuk, as I’m sure we all would agree. 3) I think Dean Lombardi fully understands that going after a RFA would make him a huge target, given the number of talented young players he has. What do they call that in world affairs…Mutually Assured Destruction? It would be quite a shock to see that happen.

—–

DP asked: Rich, how was your experience at the draft? How busy was it at the Kings table during the first couple rounds, and does the “action” slow down during the later rounds? Was there any good debating over draftees at the Kings table or are the picks mostly agreed upon?

Answer: The media section is very isolated from the draft tables, so I’m afraid I can’t tell you much about how busy things were at the Kings’ draft table. You see people talking, in person or on the phone, but that doesn’t necessarily translate to being “busy,” in terms of trades, etc. Could be trade talk, could just be general talk. As far as debate, Lombardi explained in the pre-draft Q&A that there is no debate. The debate takes place in the meeting room in El Segundo in the weeks leading up to the draft. By the time the Kings get to the table, their list is firm. I would imagine that there’s quite a bit of debate when players are ranked, but having debate at the draft table would be highly counter-productive. As far as my experience, it was very good. The first round was dreadfully slow — Four hours? Seriously? — but being there on the second day was good, because it was much easier to follow the picks and trades in person, and of course it was very helpful to be able to meet the draft picks in person. Good experience, all around.

—–

K asked: Last year, we all speculated who the Kings would get via free agency. We dreamed that one day Kovi would be available and wouldn’t that be amazing to sign him. Well, now that time is here and a lot of King fans pray that we do NOT sign him. What happened? Do you think he is as a one dimensional player as people say? Are they crazy for not wanting him? Personally, I think he is just what the doctor ordered. Seems like you give fans one year of playoffs and they turn too good for certain players…

Answer: Well, in part here, you’re asking me to speculate about other people’s motivations/opinions, and that’s impossible for me to do. I can’t speak for anyone else but myself in terms of discussing why a Kovalchuk signing would ultimately be positive or negative. My opinion, which I’ve held for a while, is that Kovalchuk is a “game-changer,” and I think there’s only a handful of game-changers in the NHL right now. If this was 2002, for instance, and the Kings had no internal salary limits (which, of course, they did back then), there’s no doubt that a Kovalchuk signing would be a slam dunk. But I believe you have to put it in the context of 2010. There’s now a salary cap. There’s a significant number of young players who will need to be re-signed by the Kings in the next couple years. The question, in my mind, is not, “Is Kovalchuk a fantastic player?” Yes, he is. The question is more of a zero-sum question: is it worth it? If you have to pay Kovalchuk $10 million a year (completely hypothetical) and you end up losing Jack Johnson and Wayne Simmonds because of it (again, completely hypothetical), is it worth it? Some would say yes, others would say no. That’s why this is complicated. There’s a certain about of prediction and risk-management involved that goes far beyond one player’s skills.

—–

Keith Korneluk asked: 1. Do you see the Kings utilizing free agency to strengthen defensive depth or are they slotting one of the kids in Manchester to fill the role? 2. There have been scattered reports that Lombardi is “luke-warm” on Ilya Kovalchuk but Tim Leiweke really wants him. Do you see AEG forcing Lombardi’s hand here? 3. I know Colten Teubert is far away from cracking the Kings roster. Do you see him as a Monarch this season or will he join the Reign? Are the Kings still high on this former #13 overall pick?

Answers: 1) I think it could be both, and I would add a trade as a third (and perhaps the most likely) option. If you assume that Doughty, Johnson, Scuderi and Greene are set, and that a Drewiske/Harrold type can be a seventh defenseman, that potentially leaves two spots (those primarily held last season by O’Donnell and Jones) open. If O’Donnell returns, that obviously fills one of the spots, but let’s say he doesn’t come back. In my mind, that opens a spot for an outside addition (trade/free agent) and a spot for a young player to come in and fill a 5/6 role. In general, though, it will be up to those young players to show they deserve a spot. Should be interesting. 2) I’m really not trying to be snippy about this, but where are these “scattered reports”? The only one I’ve seen that would remotely fall in that category would be Jim Matheson’s note this morning. I have huge respect for Jim — he’s a giant in the industry — and that respect is reinforced the fact he has the wisdom to use a term such as “the feeling is.” But that’s about a 50-foot outlet pass away from a “report,” and honestly, it’s the closest I’ve seen. That said, I’m not trying to avoid the topic. As I answered in the previous set of questions, I have no first-hand knowledge of that. If it’s taking place, I would always consider it a mistake for anyone on the “business” side to force the hand of anyone in hockey operations. That has a very small chance of working out well in the long term, for any team. 3) That depends entirely on how Teubert looks in camp, and how any number of the other defensive prospects look, but I’d have to consider it a rather significant disappointment if Teubert ended up in the ECHL. That’s a decent spot for goalies, but not for top forward or defensive prospects, especially not recent first-round picks. The extent that the Kings would be “high on” Teubert is tied directly to how well he plays. If he has a lights-out camp, they’ll be plenty high on him. The fact that Lombardi singled out Teubert as being “not close,” during my postseason interview with him, was not a real good sign for Teubert.

—–

Michael J. asked: There is a lot of talk about how if the Kings do sign Kovi there is no chance to re-sign all the players they have now. Do you think that the Kings want to sign Kovi to a huge contract only to have to dismantle the team three years from now? It seems quite contrary to the direction the team has taken the last four years or so.

Answer: Well, you’ve hit upon the million-dollar question, and there’s not a single person who has the rock-solid answer. If you’re a GM, and you never sign a big-money free agent, or never trade for a big-money player, you have an excellent chance of retaining all of your young talent. On the other hand, your chances of winning a Stanley Cup with only home-grown talent are slim. So it’s a risk-reward situation. I don’t know that anyone is suggesting that a Kovalchuk signing would cause the Kings to “dismantle,” necessarily, but there’s a reasonable chance that it might prevent them from re-signing a couple young, very talented players. The Kings are not in a unique situation here. Every team has to go through this, to some extent. But when you’re talking about adding a huge salary to a team with a lot of young talent, it magnifies the issue. This is why general managers get the big money. They have to weigh the risk, run their internal numbers six ways from Sunday, and figure out whether it’s worth it.

—–

Ciccarelli asked: In the draft, how cognizant are teams of other teams’ ranking of prospects? For example, what prompted the Kings to move up two spots to pick Toffoli at 47? Because they knew Edmonton would take him? Is that based on a hunch or more than a hunch?

Answer: Very good question. Sometimes a hunch, sometimes more than a hunch. In the interview I did with him last week, Lombardi talked about how/why he traded up to get Andrew Campbell. He did it in order to get ahead of Ottawa. Why Ottawa? Because the Senators had just hired Craig Hartsburg as coach, and Hartsburg coached Campbell in junior. Now, was Ottawa really going to take Campbell in the third round? Nobody knows for certain except the Senators, but because Campbell was the highest-ranked player on Lombardi’s list, the Kings judged that it was worthwhile to get ahead of Ottawa and assure themselves of getting Campbell. In terms of Toffoli, I don’t know the particulars, but it could be something as simple as knowing that Edmonton had been heavily scouting Toffoli in junior. Basically, I’d say it’s all based on hunches (unless there’s some double-agent stuff going on!) but that some hunches can be stronger than others.

—–

Joey Drillings asked: 1-Do you think Lotionov or Schenn is more ready for the NHL grind? 2-Are the Kings as high on Kozun and low on Teubert as it seems to us Kings followers? 3-Any word on what the Kings offered for the negotiating rights to Kovi at the draft?

Answers: 1) I fully acknowledge that it’s a cop-out answer, but I’d really consider them about equal. In terms of physical maturation, Schenn probably has the edge, but Loktionov has a slight edge of having spent a full season — albeit part of it injured — in pro hockey against older players. In a strict Schenn vs. Loktionov question, I’d probably give the edge to Schenn, but it’s not a huge margin. 2) I guess I struggle with the terms “high on” and “low on,” in terms of teams’ opinions. I’m higher on Tommy’s than I am McDonald’s, because that’s a personal preference. I don’t think evaluating hockey players works the same way. It’s a merit-based system. I hesitate to re-frame your question for you, because I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but I think you might be asking about their play versus their expectations. If so, it’s fair to say that Teubert has, so far, not met expectations while Kozun, so far, has exceeded them. Now, if Teubert has a lights-out camp, and Kozun suddenly can’t score at the pro level, that turns around very quickly. That’s really what determines “high” and “low,” if that makes sense. 3) No, I really don’t know, but it couldn’t have been much. Perhaps a draft pick or two would be my guess.

—–

BringBackKingstom asked: I was wondering do teams show up at the draft with names pre-attached to jerseys or are names quickly attached back stage somewhere? Thanks.

Answer: Yes, as others have stated, the nameplates are ready to go. It’s a nice touch, one that I believe is a recent tradition. How cool is it for those kids to get drafted and already have a jersey with their name on it? Great moment.

—–

Mcpuck asked: Is Teubert definetly going to Manchester this year? I believe he is done with Juniors. I believe need needs to be challenged at Manchester and not Ontario

Answer: Nothing will be determined until training camp. Yes, Teubert is done with junior, and all things being equal, the Kings would rather see him in Manchester, but that’s really going to be determined how he looks in the camps. The competition among the defensive prospects is very deep, so it’s going to be up to Teubert (and everyone else) to earn a spot at the various levels, starting with the NHL level. Almost nothing about that process is pre-determined.

Rules for Blog Commenting

  • No profanity, slurs or other offensive language. Replacing letters with symbols does not turn expletives into non-expletives.
  • Personal attacks against other blog commenters, and/or blatant attempts to antagonize other comments, are not tolerated. Respectful disagreement is encouraged. Posts that continually express the same singular opinion will be deleted.
  • Comments that incite political, religious or similar debates will be deleted.
  • Please do not discuss, or post links to websites that illegally stream NHL games.
  • Posting under multiple user names is not allowed. Do not type in all caps. All violations are subject to comment deletion and/or banning of commenters, per the discretion of the blog administrator.

Repeated violations of the blog rules will result in site bans, commensurate with the nature and number of offenses.

Please flag any comments that violate the site rules for moderation. For immediate problems regarding problematic posts, please email zdooley@lakings.com.