|
Post by stevegm on Aug 12, 2015 19:15:53 GMT
One of the reasons this team underachieved in 10 imo, was because Kessel wasn't replaced. Underachieved? They were one win (and a hideously separated wrist) away from the Conference Finals. Collapse? Yes. Painful blot on the franchise's history? Yes. Underachievement? Not IMO. whoa now. is "collapse", or "painfull blot" really that much better than "underachieved"? is it really worth discussion? the b's were only about 1 win away from making the playoffs this year, and most figured they "underachieved".
|
|
|
Post by ialwayslikedmarcotte on Aug 12, 2015 19:38:09 GMT
Sure it's different. If an overachieving team drops a 3-games-to-none lead, that's a collapse but it's not underachieving. That team won 44% of the win total required to bring home a Cup.
When a perennial contender completely misses the playoffs, that is underachieving.
The whole premise of your post was that the 2010 Bs somehow failed to play up to their potential because Phil was missing. Phil's presence on that team would not have changed a thing.
|
|
|
Post by Fletcher on Aug 12, 2015 19:55:14 GMT
The Hockey News has said all kinds of things on all kinds of subjects. I have never once read them and thought "case closed" about anything. I'd look a little harder than turning unquestioningly to The Hockey News for gospel on hockey issues. It's a debate. Some see him as a superstar, and some don't. I can see both sides of it. However, the superstar argument was more convincing before the 2014-15 season.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Aug 12, 2015 20:03:14 GMT
"They won't get anywhere on talent. The Panther's & Sabers have more right now." More talent than who ? The Bruins or Calgary ? I'll clarify both for you & 50. Looking on paper as far as talent goes both the Panthers & Sabers have players that can hit the superstar status. Barkov & Ekblad are both capable of hitting superstat status. Hurb & Bjstad both have the talent to match any B's forward in points. The Sabers also have a huge name in Eichel & could very well make Kane a more consistent point producer & if O'Reilly ever realizes that the team is bigger than any individual look out! Ask for some fawking clarification and you get it. Yes both teams have players that can hit superstardom but they are years away. No impact this upcoming season. I'll clarify both for you & 50. Looking on paper as far as talent goes both the Panthers & Sabers have players that can hit the superstar status. Barkov & Ekblad are both capable of hitting superstat status. Hurb & Bjstad both have the talent to match any B's forward in points. The Sabers also have a huge name in Eichel. I agree on Ekblad. He's the real deal. Huberdeau and Bjugstad do not compare to Krejci or Bergeron. Krejci and Bergeron, plus I will throw in Rask, are the difference over Florida and Buffalo right now.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Aug 12, 2015 21:13:27 GMT
One thing not being mentioned in regards to whether the B's will be better, is CJ's influence and his ability to implement the changes that Sweeney wants going forward. CJ seems pretty stubborn, and his D to D and then up to the forwards has been his staple for yrs and yrs. DS says he wants the D more mobile, and i'm sure they must have talked about Juliens stubborn penchant for having Kelly & Campbell out on the ice down a gl. Soupy is gone, but you get the idea. I for one, think CJ is a real good coach and the B's are lucky to have him, but he has to be a big part of it if the Bruins are to make it back to the playoffs, ready to implement these changes along with a concerted effort from the whole team in regards to consistency, desire, and commitment in all areas of the ice. Better D, better offensive production. Goaltending will be fine. Yes, back on topic.... The answer is I don't have a *ucking clue. Making multiple changes to your roster with trades creates uncertainty - are the players going to perform >, <, or = to their performance pre-trade? Will they be a good fit for the system you have in place? Do they have chemistry/complement the guys you already rely on? Increasing the responsibility of young players creates uncertainty - are they able to grow into the role you've set out for them? Are they "ready"? Can they learn from their mistakes and be significantly better by the end of the year? Can they physically handle more ice, and opponents more prepared for them? Injury returns and aging create uncertainty - can guys resume the production and role they had last year/prior to injury? There are so many variables, I think it's almost impossible to do much more than make highly qualified statements. Pastrnak, Spooner and Connolly could all top 60 points this year, and the team could still be worse because Chara and Seidenberg are worse than we expect. Beleskey and Hayes could both be everything the Bruins hope, and the team could be worse because Spooner reverts to no goals and takes Pastrnak down with him or the defense behind Chara and Seidenberg is AHL calibre. Honestly, I think it boils down to this: Forwards: A healthy Krejci should find 60+ point form with any combination of wingers they'll make available. Bergeron may not hit 30 goals again, but he should be revert to the mean and that means more points and about the same number of goals from last year. Good chemistry with Smith's replacement would mean even better numbers especially if Marchand also rebounds from a weak year. Eriksson's numbers weren't much better last year than they were in his concussion year - he just didn't miss games - so I think it's reasonable to expect that they won't be worse this year and could be marginally better, and even significantly better if he and Krejci click. Everything beyond this is a big if. If Spooner and Pastrnak pick up where they left off, that alone will improve the Bruins overall offensive production noticeably. If Connolly gets to play a scoring role and seizes it, he should be a lock for at least 20 goals with his size, skill and that sweet wrister. All three could also struggle mightily for long stretches and prove that this is a difficult transition - maybe next year. Hayes and Beleskey could match their production from last year exactly...and it's hard to say if that would be good, good enough, or disappointing depending on their roles. Tim Taylor scored 20 for the Bruins. Chris Kelly has a 20 goal year. That didn't make them dyanamos. Verdict: Better? 2 in 5 chance. Equal? 1 in 5 chance. Worse? 2 in 5 chance. Coin flip. Defense: If Chara and Seidenberg were both injured, the Bruins top pairing would be last year's 3rd pairing. The third pairing, barring a trade, would probably consist of guys with almost no NHL experience. I mean, Krug-McQuaid, Miller-Irwin, Trotman-Morrow. That could make you yearn for the days of Bart...but not for Wideman, Corvo, or Meszaros. Getting better this year likely requires huge years from at least two unknowns or little knowns like Trotman and Miller or CMillar and Morrow. Asking for one D to make a huge leap at the NHL level is a risk. 2? You're asking for growing pains because there's less opportunity to insulate him and minimize the impact of his mistakes. There's little to no depth to deal with injury issues at the top end, though there's a lot of depth circling around the 5-6-7 roles. The right development decisions and the talent of guys like Morrow and allegedly CMiller could play out really nicely - we talk about a Boychuk scenario, but forget that took about a year and a half; this needs to be more like a Jonas Brodin scenario where a kid gets thrown into the pit and fights like a dog every night to prove he belongs - and succeeds.Verdict: Better? 1 in 5 chance. Equal? 1 in 5 chance. Worse? 3 in 5 chance. Goal: Rask is Rask. I think the best way to describe Rask is that he's great at doing his job, but only average at doing his job and also making up for suspect defensive play. His defensemen need to do the expected, at least, even if what can be expected of them is less than spectacular. He'll be better this year than last - regression to the mean again - but that might not show in wins and GAA if the D struggles. His ideal backup might be a guy like Subban, actually - very athletic, he can make the spectacular save even if he struggles with some of the positional ones. It would give the team a different look and a different kind of fighting chance against teams that might give the D fits with speed and skill. In some ways, I want to say it will be hard for them to be worse (Rask didn't have a good year) but that doesn't acknowledge that a goalie who isn't as good as Rask could very well look a whole lot worse. A long term injury to Rask would also be catastrophic. If they end up equal to last year, my guess is that Rask is better but they don't get the results from the back-up options and regret not reaching out to a veteran (or shrug it off as the growing pains with a rookie). Verdict: Better? 3 in 5. Equal? 1 in 5. Worse? 1 in 5.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Aug 12, 2015 21:17:27 GMT
3 Selkes is a metric.... Only Gainey won it more often (4), and only Datsyuk has won as many. But as I said above, this seems to be more about what you mean by superstar than what you think of Bergeron. Mr. Intaglibes sounds like a character in a Naipul novel. Well, if Selkes or video game covers = superstar to you, than there isn't much to argue about. I don't think that in 2014-15 Bergeron was a superstar, by any metric. In my opinion, Bergeron has indeed drifted towards the superstar conversation in certain years. Last year wasn't one of them. One of the things that was always argued in Bergeron's favor, despite some fairly average statistics, was that "he wins". 'He's a winner, he knows what it takes to win, he leads his team to winning'. So what happens when he's the leader of a team doesn't win, underachieves, and gets sub-par performances from the key leadership players when they're needed most. 55 points on a team that can't even make the playoffs suddenly doesn't look so glamorous. Everyone loves to beat up on Lucic, or Smith, or Hamilton for the failures last year, but at some point you have to turn your eyes to the team's leaders like Chara and Bergeron. And Chara was injured. Bergeron wasn't. Yet, he regressed in almost every measurable way. I love Bergeron, and I think he'll have a bounce back year, but putting up 55 points as the leader of a team that fails to make the playoffs, amid some very ugly losses and late-game collapses, ain't superstar stuff. The Bergeron-Towes comparison has probably never been so glaring, and within it, I think you can find the difference between a very good player and a superstar, at least for the 2014-15 season. Like I said, it depends on if you're talking profile or quality. Winning a major trophy in three of the last four years (including in a down year for offensive production and a terrible year for your team) certainly factors into it for me in either conversation. The video game box is a reflection of the popularity side - it was a fan vote. He won it. That he was even an option had a lot to do with him playing in the Finals with a broken everything. That's legendary stuff.
|
|
|
Post by kelvana33 on Aug 12, 2015 21:21:21 GMT
We wont know until the season is over, last year if you asked me this question I would have said no, since no replacement for Iginla, but still thought they were a playoff team. Never would have thought they would of missed the playoffs. You lost Iginla and Boychuk without replacing them, this year at least you have Beleskey, Hayes etc..I'm optimistic though.
|
|
|
Post by Fletcher on Aug 12, 2015 21:53:41 GMT
Well, if Selkes or video game covers = superstar to you, than there isn't much to argue about. I don't think that in 2014-15 Bergeron was a superstar, by any metric. In my opinion, Bergeron has indeed drifted towards the superstar conversation in certain years. Last year wasn't one of them. One of the things that was always argued in Bergeron's favor, despite some fairly average statistics, was that "he wins". 'He's a winner, he knows what it takes to win, he leads his team to winning'. So what happens when he's the leader of a team doesn't win, underachieves, and gets sub-par performances from the key leadership players when they're needed most. 55 points on a team that can't even make the playoffs suddenly doesn't look so glamorous. Everyone loves to beat up on Lucic, or Smith, or Hamilton for the failures last year, but at some point you have to turn your eyes to the team's leaders like Chara and Bergeron. And Chara was injured. Bergeron wasn't. Yet, he regressed in almost every measurable way. I love Bergeron, and I think he'll have a bounce back year, but putting up 55 points as the leader of a team that fails to make the playoffs, amid some very ugly losses and late-game collapses, ain't superstar stuff. The Bergeron-Towes comparison has probably never been so glaring, and within it, I think you can find the difference between a very good player and a superstar, at least for the 2014-15 season. Like I said, it depends on if you're talking profile or quality. Winning a major trophy in three of the last four years (including in a down year for offensive production and a terrible year for your team) certainly factors into it for me in either conversation. The video game box is a reflection of the popularity side - it was a fan vote. He won it. That he was even an option had a lot to do with him playing in the Finals with a broken everything. That's legendary stuff. Yeah, that's probably a fair distinction. I might say this: At the present time, I don't view Bergeron to be superstar player in the league, but when I consider what he has done over the past 10 seasons in Boston, I would say he could easily be considered one for the Bruins.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2015 21:54:49 GMT
I think Chappy has it right. You need depth, luck, health and flexibility to make deals when the shit starts to hit the fan.
|
|
|
Post by RichHillOntario on Aug 12, 2015 22:05:40 GMT
I'm taking "better" to mean will the off-season changes enable them to surpass last year's 96 points. I don't know. The Bruins have some if's. If the forwards can find ways to cash in on opportunities when it counts, they'll be better. An upswing in that department might help improve on the 56 goals they scored in third periods. Only Buffalo with 54 and Arizona's 50 were worse. Maybe bring in the earlier talk of Julien having to modify aspects of his coaching philoshies particularly in the third period. We know in past years, the defence helped hold leads with solid positional play. Last year the D wasn't as good at it especially with the offence drying up in the final 20 minutes. Last year's edition created scoring chances but struggled to put them away. If they convert more of them plus a renewed ruggedness, they might be better.
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on Aug 13, 2015 1:33:30 GMT
Sure it's different. If an overachieving team drops a 3-games-to-none lead, that's a collapse but it's not underachieving. That team won 44% of the win total required to bring home a Cup. When a perennial contender completely misses the playoffs, that is underachieving. The whole premise of your post was that the 2010 Bs somehow failed to play up to their potential because Phil was missing. Phil's presence on that team would not have changed a thing. No that was not the whole premise of my post. a "small part of my premise", was that there was "no replacement" for what Phil brought the year before. Whatever he brought to the table was just subtracted. "Another" part of my premise was that kind of the same thing happened with Iginla and Boychuk...and our team didn;'t get to where we felt it should be. A "further" part of my premise is that with Hamilton and Lucic, 'largely' not being replaced, there's potential for more of the same. But even all of that wasn't "close" to the "premise" of my post..
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Aug 13, 2015 2:08:41 GMT
"This year, there are no comparable replacements for either Lucic, or Hamilton."
Beleskey and Hayes replace Lucic both physically and scoring.
Hamilton's offense will need to be replaced.
I think offense from Dougie could be replaced by committee, UFA or via trade.
|
|
|
Post by NAS on Aug 13, 2015 2:57:38 GMT
"This year, there are no comparable replacements for either Lucic, or Hamilton." Beleskey and Hayes replace Lucic both physically and scoring. Hamilton's offense will need to be replaced. I think offense from Dougie could be replaced by committee, UFA or via trade. I don't want to replace either of them. I think the whole premise is flawed. It's as bad as the "didn't replace the X goals from the right side" BS we've been hearing for years. The team grows, it changes. The idea isn't to stay the same.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Aug 13, 2015 4:01:31 GMT
There's nothing wrong with staying the same - just don't suck.
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Aug 13, 2015 5:51:46 GMT
There's nothing wrong with staying the same - just don't suck. Yep, just don't play the same.
|
|
|
Post by #4 Bobby Orr! GOAT! on Aug 13, 2015 5:53:28 GMT
Replace x goals from right side BS -- It is not just replacing the goals but replacing big mins that include PP and yes it is also about replacing the goals.
2015 Eric 22 Smith 13 Griff 6 Gagn 3 Fras 3 Cunney 2 Conn 0 Talb 0 Pasta 10 Ferl 0 Robb 0 0 =59 in 325 games 2014 Ig 30 Smith 20 Eric 10 Thorn 5 Fras 2 Cunny 0 John 0 =67 in 310 games
Eric made up for Smith drop, Pasta coming alive certainly helped but the committee did not cover the Ig loss. It takes a quality player to be playing the top line, and the better his skill the more the ice opens for others to score. 8 goals is the differential and that is the difference of Eric and Ig. Ig also had 8GWG, team 14 had 13GWG and 15had 8GWG, I'll take those extra 8goals or even 5GWG as opposed to 10 SOL.
A top line RW is not the be all end all, but it sure would have helped make the playoffs.
see what Chi can do without Kane
NAS Sometimes your arrogance is just so - so - arrogant, yeah thats the word. Not replace them so what we'll just play 4-5 or 3-5 when their shift coincides. Too far? They have been replaced, I just hope their minutes can be played and points picked up by COMMITTEE.
DS has brought in an interesting group, as someone else noted, they bring an anticipation as to what we are going to see and of a team that will be fun to watch again.
Last year was a wreck, Z was 2 steps behind playing on 1 wing, DK never got back from game 11, Dougie goes down, Rask was good but not his exceptional, JB and IGGy gone - were all huge contributors to the train wreck as was their ineptitude in the shootout.
Questions that need to be answered to the positive Can Pasta, Spooner emerge, will they be together Can Belesk and Hayes be better or at least as good Will Conn become the worth of his #6th pick Can Zac stay out of the press box Can their be an injury free season to the top dogs Will the D step up and answer the call
Irwin is about the same boat, as JB when he cracked the lineup here. He is similar in stature, he scores more, will he be the hitter or do we need his hitting K.Miller can cover the PK and is steady maybe he covers the hitting.
The D will be fine with Z back to form (not as good as 2013), Rask will be better(than 2013), the forwards will shoot, they will score.
DS will make adjustments when needed (I hope), not when everyone jumps from the wagon, but when needed.
CJ will earn his money and coach the utes, and quit the kitty by the barn door, and initiate ways to win like his OT 4-4.
I am not only hoping for some excitement, some wins, but also to see how all the prospects are doing all year. Overall win or lose this winter will be exciting.
|
|
|
Post by #4 Bobby Orr! GOAT! on Aug 13, 2015 6:14:43 GMT
PS last year was only a wreck because we did not make the playoffs, 96 points is not a wreck. 96 points will make the playoffs this year, teams will not be playing for McD, Ott ran an unbelievable streak was the wreck.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Aug 13, 2015 13:49:34 GMT
"This year, there are no comparable replacements for either Lucic, or Hamilton." Beleskey and Hayes replace Lucic both physically and scoring. Hamilton's offense will need to be replaced. I think offense from Dougie could be replaced by committee, UFA or via trade. I don't want to replace either of them. I think the whole premise is flawed. The team grows, it changes. The idea isn't to stay the same. Cam and Don said "tough cookies" on staying the same. I agree with them. The team didn't grow it became stagnate. There needed to be some turnover.
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on Aug 13, 2015 14:51:29 GMT
"This year, there are no comparable replacements for either Lucic, or Hamilton." Beleskey and Hayes replace Lucic both physically and scoring. Hamilton's offense will need to be replaced. I think offense from Dougie could be replaced by committee, UFA or via trade. I don't want to replace either of them. I think the whole premise is flawed. It's as bad as the "didn't replace the X goals from the right side" BS we've been hearing for years. The team grows, it changes. The idea isn't to stay the same. Yeah, the premise is flawed, but not for the reasons you say. In hindsight, it hardly looks like those lost goals from the right side was such BS afterall.(I was also one who mistakenly thought they could be made up by committee). Also, the "idea" is very particular to the team one is talking about, not a one size fits all you suggest. For Chicago, staying the same would be perfect. Edmonton or Buffalo...whole different story. The reason the premise is flawed,...seriously flawed, is because Belesky and Hayes don't replace Lucic. Hayes replaces Smith. As it stands today, Belesky is the only replacement for Lucic.
|
|
|
Post by chappy28 on Aug 13, 2015 15:28:17 GMT
"This year, there are no comparable replacements for either Lucic, or Hamilton." Beleskey and Hayes replace Lucic both physically and scoring. Hamilton's offense will need to be replaced. I think offense from Dougie could be replaced by committee, UFA or via trade. Who are you kidding? Neither Belesky nor Hayes can replace what Lucic brought to the table. Lucic has been consistently producing 50-60 pt seasons for a while now. I was also disappointed with his production last year, but he still put up 44 pts last year Belesky had 32 Hayes had 35 Both had career seasons. To compare these guys to Lucic is a joke. Belesky isn't even young so to think that he will all of the sudden get 50-60 pts is a stretch at best. Lucic was a very under-rated passer and never got much credit for the assists he got. In Belesky and Hayes you have two guys who had 10-15 assists last year. To me that means they lack Lucic's playmaking ability. And we aren't even touching on the fact that Lucic was consistently top 10 in the NHL in hits, can drop the gloves, and would occasionally go into beast mode and start to instill fear in whoever he went into the corner with. We lost him because we couldn't afford him -- it sucks, but let's not try to pretend that we "replaced" him with either Belesky or Hayes. That's just setting yourself up for disappointment. But the good news is that team success is different from individual success and it is about the sum of the parts, not necessarily about "replacing" one player If we are going to replace the lost offense from Lucic and Hamilton I think it will need to come from Spooner, Pastrnak, and Connolly. I'd be pretty pumped if both Belesky and Hayes can repeat their production from last year, but I think our young guns are the one's with the ability to get up in the 50-60+ pts range to get our offense back to where it needs to be. Luckily, I think all three of them have that kind of offensive potential. If we can hit on two out of three we will be fine
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on Aug 13, 2015 15:36:54 GMT
Cam and Don said "tough cookies" on staying the same. I agree with them. The team didn't grow it became stagnate. There needed to be some turnover. Some turnover is always necessary. With virtually identical situations, the Kings and Bruins, saw it entirely different. By the midway point, there should be some clarity whether those 2 philosophies were merely different flavours, or one excercised better vision than the other.
|
|
|
Post by crowls on Aug 13, 2015 15:59:55 GMT
Hard to argue that they are better after subtracting; Lucic, Hamilton, Soderberg & Smith and replacing with C. Miller, Beleskey & Hayes. Even Campbell and Paille are out, replaced with Rinaldo.
Place a high hope in some better health; Krejci & Chara should be much better. Even Seidenberg is a full year beyond his injury/surgery.
Expect growth from Pastrnak, could really be an important piece next year. Also expect growth from Spooner to help ease or exceed the loss of Yeti. Big opportunity for Connelly to establish himself.
Think CJ will have no shortage of options with his lineup, maybe that reflects some of the uncertainty.
Defense was already suspect with Hamilton, however, improved health from Cedfano and Seidenberg will be big. If Krug can establish top-4, things are looking a little better there. Add another step-up from; C.Miller, Trotman or Morrow can only strengthen the group.
|
|
|
Post by crowls on Aug 13, 2015 16:21:33 GMT
"This year, there are no comparable replacements for either Lucic, or Hamilton." Beleskey and Hayes replace Lucic both physically and scoring. Hamilton's offense will need to be replaced. I think offense from Dougie could be replaced by committee, UFA or via trade. Who are you kidding? Neither Belesky nor Hayes can replace what Lucic brought to the table. Lucic has been consistently producing 50-60 pt seasons for a while now. I was also disappointed with his production last year, but he still put up 44 pts last year Belesky had 32 Hayes had 35 Both had career seasons. To compare these guys to Lucic is a joke. Belesky isn't even young so to think that he will all of the sudden get 50-60 pts is a stretch at best. Lucic was a very under-rated passer and never got much credit for the assists he got. In Belesky and Hayes you have two guys who had 10-15 assists last year. To me that means they lack Lucic's playmaking ability. And we aren't even touching on the fact that Lucic was consistently top 10 in the NHL in hits, can drop the gloves, and would occasionally go into beast mode and start to instill fear in whoever he went into the corner with. We lost him because we couldn't afford him -- it sucks, but let's not try to pretend that we "replaced" him with either Belesky or Hayes. That's just setting yourself up for disappointment. But the good news is that team success is different from individual success and it is about the sum of the parts, not necessarily about "replacing" one player If we are going to replace the lost offense from Lucic and Hamilton I think it will need to come from Spooner, Pastrnak, and Connolly. I'd be pretty pumped if both Belesky and Hayes can repeat their production from last year, but I think our young guns are the one's with the ability to get up in the 50-60+ pts range to get our offense back to where it needs to be. Luckily, I think all three of them have that kind of offensive potential. If we can hit on two out of three we will be fine Agree that Beleskey cannot fully replace Lucic, but you may be underestimating him a bit. His 22 goals and 32 points came in only 62 games. Pace that over 82 games and he is 28-13-41. he then went on to score 8 goals in 16 playoff games. His hit-rate also put him on pace for 200+. Previous year, scored at a pace of 14-22-36 on an 82 game schedule with about 200 hits. Lucic had a great 13-14, but was down LY and in 12-13, could argue that Beleskey's production is not too far off from where Lucic has been at for 2 of the past 3 seasons. Expect Beleskey to be a step back from Lucic, but also expect him to show up more frequently.
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Aug 13, 2015 16:21:22 GMT
Cam and Don said "tough cookies" on staying the same. I agree with them. The team didn't grow it became stagnate. There needed to be some turnover. Some turnover is always necessary. With virtually identical situations, the Kings and Bruins , saw it entirely different. By the midway point, there should be some clarity whether those 2 philosophies were merely different flavours, or one excercised better vision than the other. The LA Kings didn't see it entirely different Steve. The Kings let Williams and Stoll walk, they cut ties with Richards completely, Robin Regehr retired. They traded Martin Jones and brought in Enroth and of course the addition of Lucic. They aren't exactly going with the same lineup.
|
|
|
Post by crowls on Aug 13, 2015 16:24:19 GMT
Some turnover is always necessary. With virtually identical situations, the Kings and Bruins , saw it entirely different. By the midway point, there should be some clarity whether those 2 philosophies were merely different flavours, or one excercised better vision than the other. The LA Kings didn't see it entirely different Steve. The Kings let Williams and Stoll walk, they cut ties with Richards completely, Robin Regehr retired. They traded Martin Jones and brought in Enroth and of course the addition of Lucic. They aren't exactly going with the same lineup. They also have Kopitar and Lucic as pending UFA's. Not like the NHL ends after the midpoint of the 2015-16 season.
|
|