Ethan Moreau, Is It?

So you already know by now that the Kings have essentially signed Ethan Moreau to a 1-year, $600,000 contract. Technically he has not signed yet, but rather reached an agreement with the Kings on a contract to sign in the next day or two. You should also know plenty about Moreau. At 36 years old (come the start of training camp) Ethan is a 16 season NHL veteran, with 900 games under his belt. If you aren’t familiar with him, you are either 12 years old or need to pay more attention to the rest of the league. For those few, this is Ethan Moreau:

That’s enough to get an idea of what to expect from Moreau. He can pitch in some points, though he hasn’t scored more than 14 goals since he was on the right side of 30. He’s not here to score, he’s here to be a good teammate, hit some people, play responsible defense and grind, grind, grind. He was Edmonton’s captain for many a year and should fit in nicely on the Kings’ fourth line. Parse was never meant to be a fourth liner (Ethan is typically a LW, by the by), though I don’t imagine Moreau will be dressing for every game… then again, our coach is Terry Murray, so who knows.

This is the kind of signing teams who want to win make. Though there are infinitely more Ethan Moreau’s to choose from than Mike Richards’ or Simon Gagne’s, it is almost as important to bring quality veteran experience to your bottom six if playoff success is your goal. I can’t remember the last team to go deep in the playoffs without someone like Moreau pluggin’ away on the fourth line, changing their Depends at intermissions. Don’t have high expectations for this guy. He’s making barely above league minimum for a reason and no one would likely have blamed him if he had retired this offseason. But Moreau is a fighter, a tough cookie who gives it all he’s got, even if what’s he’s got is much less than what he had.

This is likely to be his last hurrah in the NHL (though one never knows who will pull a Recchi and play until their beards are as coarse as the hair on their testicles), and that is something that works in the Kings’ favor. Moreau doesn’t have a Cup, but I bet he really wants one. He came oh so close in 2006 when he scored 19 points in 21 games – Moreau has played in 46 total playoff games – and you can bank on him spilling his guts for the Kings in order to get back to the place from which the mighty have fallen.

GO KINGS GO!



Categories: L.A. Kings News

Tags: , , ,

77 replies

  1. “…until their beards are as coarse as the hair on their testicles.”

    you’re gonna get some traffic for that. I don’t know if it’s kind you’re lookin for but hey maybe they’ll become kings fans, haha

  2. I concur, and this was a damn funny post.

  3. Hairy balls or not, great and entertaining post, welcome moreau, lets get that cup boys. You know if I herd rich say testical, I would laugh, then put him on moderation lol im now getting the jist of this site, moooore fuuuun. Sorry for my intro anal asshole bashing, your good people. Go kings go

  4. … If the Kings actually need to play Ethan Moreau next season, they are in far more trouble than I initially thought.

    I suspect he’ll merely be an insurance policy in case one of their bottom six forwards go down.

    • Need? We didn’t pick up Moreau because we need him, but because he brings a couple elements we lack. Our veteran presence in the bottom six is down to just Stoll. Regardless of his ability right now (which is still that of a solid -not great- fourh line player), those 16 years of experience will help in many ways I think over the course of the year and especially come playoff time.

  5. We didn’t pick up Moreau because we need him, but because he brings a couple elements we lack.

    … I agree. The Kings clearly lack the ability to compile mass quantities of penalty minutes and times shorthanded, relative to the rest of the NHL anyway – and if Moreau is used enough, that deficiency will be rectified. Don’t see how this helps the team in any way, but hey, wanna cover all the bases I suppose?

    Our veteran presence in the bottom six is down to just Stoll.

    … Veteran presence only counts if it’s good veteran presence. Bad players are bad players; I don’t care how far over the age of 30 they are.

    over the course of the year and especially come playoff time.

    … If Moreau is performing any more than “Gatorade Monitor” duties for the Kings in the playoffs next season, some people are getting fired. Just sayin.

  6. I have waited to come up with the right reaction to this signing. I think I have it. I hate it.

    • How about this: His locker will be right next to Penner’s where he can constantly remind him of…

      a) how bad things were in Edmonton

      and

      b) that it is his contract year.

  7. I fail to see how one can have any sort of intense reaction to this in either direction. He won’t kill us, he won’t give us the cup. I see it as very low risk, fairly low reward.

  8. For me it’s not a matter of the money but rather having room for this guy on our team. If he plays on the left side I would rather have Clifford or Parse play left in our bottom 6. Where does he fit in our bottom six? Again I would rather have Stoll, Lewis, Parse, Clifford or Richardson on the ice. I guess he would be better than Westgarth. I’m not too concerned with adding leadership to this team when I look at our top 6.

  9. It never occurred to me that Moreau was still playing (or to forget the fact, for that matter).

    His .6M puts into additional perspective the spreads in other contract negotiations – such as DDs.

  10. His value — *on* the ice is 2 fold:

    1) He might pot a few points — certainly more than Westgarth.

    2) If TM chooses to keep Westgarth around, having Moreau around takes the onus off Clifford to scrap. (TM then has 2 brawlers.) Sure Clifford has heavy fists; but he also has no pugilistic defensive skills. Let him skate and develop; let Moreau get involved in the scrums.

    I don’t know about off the ice but I think wearing a C implies he has character. Maybe he can inspire Greene and Penner to skate hard, Johnson to actually try to defend, and take a little heat off of Brown.

    For $600,000 there’s no real risk.

    • Wow, I was getting ready to write an article today about how EM’s addition does take the onus off Kyle to fight and that is the main positive I see. Get out of my head, Jim.

      • You want me in your head, you need me in your head! Ok, I can’t pull off Nicholson.

        Scribe, your vast knowledge of the game and elegant prose are far superior to mine. Please, write something. It’s never good to let my word be the definitive one on any subject. (Including subjects on which I’m actually an expert…)

  11. It’s funny to Kings fans on various Kings boards saying they don’t like the signing of Moreau.

    I don’t know what they expect or what they are thinking this signing means.

    He is obviously not here to score.
    He is obviously not here to be our 1st line LW.
    He is obviously not here to be amazing.

    But what he is here for is to provide toughness and a veteran presence that our young team lacks. He may not play everyday, but for 600k, he doesn’t need to. If the Kings are going to be as good as pundits and fans think they will be, people like Moreau will prove their value come playoff time, not necessarily the regular season. And those of you that are, don’t underestimate the value of veterans no matter how much time they play.

    We are getting a veteran presence for 600k. Smyth cost 4.5 mil. Obviously Smyth brings more to the table offense wise, but veterans are veterans and Moreau is respected just like Smyth is. Low risk, reward can be anything.

  12. Not to sound like a dick, but I also question any King fan’s… not passion… but knowledge of successful playoff and Cup winning teams. Most have players such as Moreau. If he can stay healthy he will add what we are missing: veteran leadership. Leading by example. Practice, on the road, and in the playoffs, exactly what we need.

    • That is not sounding like a dick. You are sharing your opinion. Let me share mine. Moreau is a shell of the player he used to be. I would not be surprised if his spine is being held together by duct tape. He takes ill advised penalties because he no longer has the legs and agility he used to. I almost look at him like a much old version of Matt Greene at left wing. Now, if I balance that with the agreed needed presence of a sandpaper veteran in the bottom 6, I come away with the conclusion that I would have rather brought in a productive one via trade. Hopefully it will work out.

    • Not to sound like a dick, but I also question any King fan’s… not passion… but knowledge of successful playoff and Cup winning teams. Most have players such as Moreau. If he can stay healthy he will add what we are missing: veteran leadership.

      … Like lazy words such as “heart”, “grit”, and “determination”, “veteran leadership” is waaaay overvalued, and not only that, veterans aren’t leaders simply by virtue of being veterans. They also have to be able to play the game. A player like Moreau, who shouldn’t even make the lineup – how is he going to lead? The Kings have two excellent veterans on their squad – Scuderi and Mitchell, who play over 20 minutes each per game and are relied upon heavily in the Kings’ system of playing the game. What do you think Moreau would be able to provide that those two aren’t providing already?

      So many have it backwards. Chemistry doesn’t create winning, it comes as a result of winning. Leadership, by and large, is done on the ice – by example. That’s why, in almost every case, the leaders on a team are their best players. I’m not saying a veteran can’t lead, but they have to be able to contribute in a tangible way. You don’t build a Champion by simply stockpiling veterans and older players, you build one by putting together a balanced and deep team – with young players, mid-level veterans, and players over 30 who are unquestionably able to still get the job done.

      • Agree. It is akin to a great golf swing. A repeatable golf swing does not create great rhythm. Great rhythm creates a great repeatable swing. I like that Dean wants character players but I would prefer we have those that can actually contribute on the ice to continue and develop the chemistry and, henceforth, the culture of winning such that you don’t have to go out there and buy character, it simply comes from the culture you have built. Exhibit A: Detroit.

      • I normally disagree with you, but in this case I think you are right.

  13. Loosen Pucks…….a very great skill that goes unappreciated, and Moreau is one of the best out there still at this.

    This is what I’ve been hoping for, the Guy to be there against the teams we don’t need a Westgarth for at all. And has plenty of hockey I.Q. to help our 4th line contribute more than just resting the other 3. A leader to help inspire and teach our up and coming kids. Hockey Player damnit……nice job Deano

    • nice job Deano

      … I wonder what happens if Moreau gets a chance to play a decent amount of games, and is terrible. Does Lombardi respond by filing a grievance with the NHL?

      • There is that sweet, cuddly side of you coming out again.

      • I guess with Moreau, Most of us know what we are getting…….no high expectations

        A Flippin’ Hockey Player, pure and simple

        The Fraser situation, is what it is, It’s not the player, it’s the position the team is now in, moving forward with a big question mark???? Once he is healthy, how does he fit, does Moreau suck so bad that you waive him and give Fraser a shot? Do the Kings lose him completely sending him down to get his ass in game shape? What? This is an organization, and requires just that…..We have to have roster space available for the kids if they are ready. Edmonton f**ked us, pure and simple.

        As for a grievance……….Could Moreau at 600k be any worse than Poni at 3.2mil??????

  14. Name me one team that lacked this so called “overrated veteran leadership” who won the cup, and ill name you 5 that had it. I would name 10 or 20, but that’s too much typing for right now.

  15. Richards is not a veteran.

    Shawn Thornton? He fits some of that mold. They are actually the same in a lot of regards.

    Low risk, veteran, help for our young guys. Of the guys you mentioned, did any actually help our younger guys out last season? Apparently not, judging by the yo-yo’ing during the regular season and the mental collapse in the playoffs.

  16. Ok Seriously, Boston had Recchi at 42? Thornton at 34 and yes Savard at 34

    So minus SAVARD

    Recchi was still productive at 42 but 6 years older than the guy you are deScribe-ing in Thornton……so lets cut the 6 years in half and ask you this…..

    Moreau at 35 or Thornton at 37, which would you choose at 600k

  17. Kingsfaninportland,

    You stated your point, and now you’re sinking with it trying to defend it passed any point of reason. Many people spend more time trying to convince themselves their original opinion was correct than they do being open to new information, so don’t worry you’re not the first.

    However, you set up your argument around “Every team to win the Cup has a player like this,” and now that that’s been disproved, you’re reaching. You won’t give up. Shawn Thornton? He hasn’t played less than 70 games the past three seasons, he’s not injury prone or on the decline like Moreau is. His contributions to the Bruins in the cup final could be seen on the ice. He still has good speed and power and he was able to play a simple and effective game using his speed and physicality. Moreau isn’t very fast anymore, and he’s fragile having been injured. Additionally, while Thornton’s addition to the game 3 lineup in the Cup finals certainly coincided with the Bruins turnaround, it’s not like they wouldn’t have won without him. Yes, maybe they wouldn’t have, but you could say the same for every other player that played for them.

    The biggest reason the Bruins won, and why I personally couldn’t pick a winner for the series besides saying “It will be a long a lot harder for the Canucks than everyone picking a 5 game series thinks), is because of the following. It was a lot like the Nashville series, actually. Nashville had a great top defense pairing that would matched up against the Sedins and shut them down. But in the Nashville series, Ryan Kesler, up against a lesser defensive pairing, was able to carry the team. What you had in the Boston series was the exact same scenario, except with Kesler very injured and unable to produce. Now the Sedins are getting shut down by Boston’s top defense pair with Chara and Seidenberg, and the key to their second line, Ryan Kesler, can barely skate because he’s so injured. Now what you have is, on a top heavy team offensively (a very large % of the Canucks goals came from the Sedins and Kesler in the regular season), the three biggest keys to your offense are all unable to produce offense for one reason or another. Of the three wins the Canucks did manage that series, two were 1-0 shutouts. They lost all their offense because of Chara, injuries, and because their one weakness was forward depth. All year they never really had legitimate second line wingers for Kesler, and their third line stepped up in the playoffs but it still was not of the elite variety. It didn’t have guys like Marchand on it, for example.

    That’s why Boston beat Vancouver. And Vancouver may very well have beaten Boston without any Ethan Moreau had they been healthier. As is they still got pretty far without someone like him. The closest you could say was Manny Malhotra, and they got worse when he returned.

    You can go back. Who did the Blackhawks have as their Ethan Moreau? No one. John Madden was partying with his shirt off with Pat Kane in limos, that’s not really amazing leadership. More importantly he has not played less than 70 games ever discounting his 4 game rookie season. But more importantly, he was brought in to help the PK because he’s a former selke winner who still had a lot more gas in the tank than Moreau does now. He was a very good penalty killer for them in the playoffs. That’s on ice contributions. That’s signing a good player on the ice, with the hope he can also be a good presence off the ice. Not signing someone who is known to be a good presence off the ice, just crossing your fingers he can also play on the ice even though he’s injured and past his prime. The latter is just the wrong way to go about it. Dean Lombardi is a little too close to the situation sometimes and he doesn’t realize this. Character is great but Lombardi does go overboard sometimes. Cory Stillman has leadership, but he can also play both sides of the puck, not just defense. Sign someone like that. You’re just one injury away to one of your injury prone wingers from having Brad Richardson as your second line LW. THAT needs to be addressed, not adding an injury prone fourth liner. You’re also an injury on the blueline away from having Matt Greene or Alec Martinez in your top 4. Mccabe is a leader who is at minimum very capable of playing bottom pairing minutes. That would be a productive signing.

    If you want to know what I mean by bringing in players who are good players first, and leaders second, just look at Pittsburgh when they won the Cup. They had Bill Guerin as their guy that kingsfaninportland is saying every Cup team has. Difference is he played on their top line. He still had gas in the tank, not just to defend, but to add offense. In the playoffs, you need depth scoring. Whenever you have to say, “this guy isn’t here to add any offense, and he won’t add any, but he’s a good signing,” you’re reaching. That’s a roster spot. You only have 18 for skaters in a game. If you have a handful of those guys who “aren’t here to contribute offense,” well now you’re down to 13 players who have to contribute all the offense, and make up for the players who aren’t. What happens if all three of your fourth line forwards are defensive/grit/PK/leader types who don’t contribute offense? Now if you play that line eight minutes a game, that’s eight minutes of out sixty every game where your team won’t score aside from the rare good bounce. If the other team has fourth liners who can score, now they have sixty minutes to score and you only have 52. You’re at a disadvantage. Using minutes is just one way to explain it so I hope you don’t find issue with the semantics here. Here is another way. Look at the Bruins again last postseason. So many close games, so many times if they hadn’t scored that one goal, they don’t win the game, the series, or the Cup. If you look at some of the guys they had on the bottom lines, Tyler Seguin, Brad Marchand at times if I remember right, Michael Ryder at times, Rich Peverley is a great example who was for sure on the fourth line a lot, Chris Kelly to a smaller extent. How many times did it come down to them needing one goal, and one of these guys scored it? Well, imagine if all six of those guys are, instead of good two way players who can contribute offense and defense on the lower lines, just Ethan Moreau, grit, PK, leadership, “not here to contribute offense” types? Those goals would never have come! The Kings need to replace Simmonds, first off, and then they need to start adding their Andrew Ladd and Rich Peverley and Brad Marchant and Michael Ryder. If you count them the Boston Bruins had Horton, Krejci, Bergeron, Lucic, Marchand, Peverley, Recchi, Ryder, Seguin, that’s NINE top 6 forwards on their team. They didn’t have the top end, top line talent of the Crosby’s or Ovechkin’s or Sedins at all (and neither do the Kings, which is why they need to do it the same way as Boston), but they had basically nine top six forwards, along with some really good bottom six guys like Kelly and Campell. Peverley played in the top six for Atlanta before he was traded, and was very good for them. Created a lot of scoring chances with his quickness and skill. Tyler Seguin as everyone knows has all the skill in the world. He stepped up not just as a top six forward, but performed like an all-world player in a must win game against Montreal. Ryder is inconsistent but very talented, great hands and a great shot. Top 6 forward skillset. He even produced a ton in their run to the Cup despite not getting top ice time. He produced like a 2nd line or top line player while often playing on the bottom lines. That’s what makes him a top 6 forward. Brad Marchand could have been their Smythe winner if they didn’t have Thomas (I know it’s a paradox but you get the idea). Recchi is not an elite top 6 player but once he got his game going he was a good second line player for them. Horton and Krejci are obviously top 6 guys on every team, top line on some (like theirs). Bergeron and Lucic clearly as well. And there you have it. Nine top 6 forwards. And guess what, Chicago was similar. You probably don’t count Versteeg, but you can count Ladd and Bolland when healthy as top 6 guys.

    So that’s what the Dean Lombardi needs to be working towards. Are Kyle Clifford and Brad Richardson really on par with the third liners of the Bruins and Blackhawks the past two seasons? Would Richardson or Clifford score 25 odd goals if he was traded to another team like Ladd did? I highly doubt it. I’m not saying I dont like Richardson or Clifford because I do, but if you’re really, truly aspiring for greatness, for winning the Cup, you can’t have the attitude of, hey, we already have them, and they’re more than adequate third liners, so we don’t need to address that. No. Boston and Chicago were fortunate in that the way the chips fell, they already had elite third lines from within their organization, so they didnt have to go acquire players and kick them out and potentially cause dressing room problems. Unfortunately the Kings arent as unfortunate. Their third line is not elite right now, or good enough to win a Cup. The only way you do win it is by bringing in better players and kicking at least one of Richardson or Clifford down to the fourth line. Now your third line and fourth line are improved. And that’s how you win a Cup. Dean Lombardi is actually in a really bad trap situation right now in regard to the third line, because they are good enough to make you think, oh, I don’t really need to address is, so you leave it status quo when they’re also not quite good enough to bring you the Cup.

    Anyway, Boston had nine top 6 forwards who all had the skill to produce offense, and a revolving fourth line that could also chip in with some offense. Chicago had about 8 top 6 guys. Vancouver had Sedin, Sedin, Kesler, Burrows, that’s four, and anywhere from 5-7 depending on how liberal you are including Raymond, Samuelsson, and Higgins. I would round them at about five last postseason with Samuelsson injured. But the difference with them is, of their 5, two of them are 40 goal scorers. The Kings did not have one. That’s why I said earlier, the Kings are not going to make the Finals with the Canucks blueprint. They will make it with Kopitar playing the role of a better Krejci, and Richards playing the role of a better Bergeron, (but also Penner playing a lesser version of Lucic or Hornton, etc). But basically, that’s the blueprint. You’re not going to win the Cup with a Malkin or Crosby carrying all your scoring if you’re the Kings. You have to do it with those three lines of top 6 forwards, the depth. The Kings improved when they acquired Mike Richards, but they did not have that Boston depth to start with, and people are forgetting that they lost so much of the size and cycling ability that made them good last season with the losses of Smyth, Simmonds, Handzus, and even Poni failing as badly as he did in LA was still a better fourth liner than the other teams fourth liners. That is a lot of size/cycle skill, and I’m worried Dean has completely overlooked this because he’s just focusing on what the Kings gained. “We got Richards and Gagne, we’re better.” He’s forgetting they lost three of their better players from last season, and really big fourth liner who could hit and kill penalties.

    If the Kings are really to win a Cup any time soon, more has to be added. You need at least one more finesse guy like Cory Stillman just so Murray has a fifth skill winger to play around with and mix into the top two lines at his discretion, and also to fill in for the inevitable injuries. And then you need to not only replace what you lost, but add. You need to add another second line calibre player or two to the bottom six. If you really want to create the perfect roster, you get rid of Matt Greene and find a better third pairing defenseman. Alec Martinez wasn’t a Cup calibre third pairing defenseman last season either, but at least he can move. Greene is a pre-lockout defenseman. There’s a reason guys like Kyle Mclaren fizzled out of the league, and Greene is a weakness for this team whether they admit it or not. Of course the weakness would be less egregious if he was making 1 million like the team that beat the Kings just signed the superior Colin White to. Greene is taking up way too much cap room and he’s just not very good. You could still win with him on the team if you added the requisite forward depth, but if we’re talking what would make the team better while keeping loyalty to current players out of it, you could find someone better than Greene for less money.

    So that’s what’s needed to improve the Kings, and that’s what Dean should have been focused on over adding leadership guys who can’t play. Leadership is fine of course, as is grit. The problem is just that Terry Murray is going to play Moraeu over Parse or Brad Richardson or Loktionov or whoever else, and now you’ve traded talent, and the ability to create offense, for “veteran grit leadership.” You’ve traded tangible talent and tangible ability to impact the game for just an abstract concept.

    That’s the problem.

    By the way, Im not saying Parse is an impact player by any means, but you get the point.

    • Jesus. What a comment. Dude. You are my hero.

    • Seriously, start your own blog. I’d read it.

    • So I guess you don’t like the Moreau signing

      Should we have re-signed Peter Harrold instead?

    • Maybe the Canucks choked because they LACKED enough veteran leadership, or that 4th line aged out ex-captain producing jack shit, but as these hurt players needed to press on, wasn’t there to step in and do some dirty work. Or settle their Goaltender down and remind him the cup is their goal……stop worrying about his Vezna Trophy rival stealing the thunder and just flat out keep his team in the game.

  18. I am working ..cannot access my computer for my list f who is where with their contracts. Since Westgarth’s name came up..what is happening with him?
    And Peter Harold?
    For that matter what about our old pal Ritas? He concussed early in season, did not play again. Anyone know anything?
    I don’t know about you guys, nut I will definitely be missing Zeus this season! Simmonds will do great in Philly so he is ok..but I hate when we lose our guys..mostly.
    GO KINGS GO!!!

  19. Also Kingsfaninportland I see you’re still reaching. It doesnt matter how many years Moreau’s been injured, it matters if he was injured recently, last season, if he’s still recovering. Someone who was injured the first ten years of their career, but hasnt had a scratch the next five years, would be by your logic extremely injury prone. “He’s been injured for two thirds of his entire career. He played less than ten games for ten years out of fifteen.” Except the guy recovered from all his freak injuries five years earlier and has since been completely healthy in this hypothetical example. It’s the same with Moreau. if he’d been injured the last three seasons very badly, but not once the twelve seasons before, you wouldn’t say “he’s not injury prone,he’s only been injured three seasons out of fifteen, barely at all.” That would be ridiculous. The logical person not trying to defend their initial opinion to no end would say it doesn’t matter if he was not injured his first twelve seasons, as a younger player, because now he’s getting up there in age, and injuries seem to be catching up with him and slowing him down, as often happens to players on the wrong side of 35. That seems to be the case here. Unfortunately even if it isnt, Moreau wasn’t much of a player for the Blue Jackets even before getting injured. 1 goal in 37 games is terrible for any forward. He didn’t even do that in five minutes per game, which would be more understandable, but still really bad. He got 12 minutes of ice time per game, 10 even strength. It was enough for him to put up the fifth worst +/- rating on the team despite playing only half the games, so it should have been enough for more than 1 goal and 6 points, but it wasn’t. He was awful before getting injured, so I can’t imagine he’s good now.

    • 1 goal in 37 games is terrible for any forward…………

      How many goals did Westgarth have?

      Lewis? Richie , 3 in one game, then 3 out of the rest?

      Handzus & Simmonds had dropped their goal production too

      What role did Moreau have in Columbus??? Who was he playing with?? What system??
      What lines did he have to play against every night?? And was Columbus tearing it up all season on all lines when Moreau was out of the lineup??

      This is a low Risk, perfectly reasonable signing

      Rupp would of been better, but look at the price, not so many more but others of the same mold found homes for alot more.

      Seriously, compared to some of Deano’s other bonehead moves are we really that upset over this????

  20. Haha thanks guys. Yeah sorry I went a little/lot long there. Also in reading it over i realize my language was a bit harsh towards kingsfaninportland. Sorry I didn’t mean it that way kingsfan. It’s actually a fair point that teams are helped by veterans who know how to do the little things well and PK and all that. I just think in this case Dean is doing that at the expense of talent or quality of on-ice play, which was my qualm with this signing.

    • I am not reaching at anything. No offense, I’m not going to read the rant.

      I read the first few sentences, and wow. You say I am trying to convince myself of a fact, and then you retort with a war and peace post to prove how you are right and I am wrong.

      Classic.

    • Why don’t you like Moreau again?

  21. he obliterated Brownie… beautiful!

  22. I am thoroughly shocked this is generating this much discussion. Its great, but hell, I only even posted something on Moreau out of a vague sense of obligation. If there was ever a signing to be ambivalent about its this one.

    But the discussion, which I’m very much enjoying, did make me realize something. Its not Lombardi people are mad at or That people are so anti-Ethan, but this is Terry Murray paranoia at its finest. Its Kevin Westgarth syndrome. If Norway plays the 7-11 minutes per game he should, then there is really nothing to fuss about. Parse isn’t a 4th liner. The top 6 is set, 2/3 of the third line is basically locked in. Richie or Lewis are the 9th forward and the rookies people want to see play like Kozun, Toffoli and Loki shouldn’t be playing on a 4th line unless they have a Guy like Mike Grier or something next to them. Lewis and Westgwrth aren’t equipped to cover for and usher in rookies. So why is everyone so upset?

    Because they fear Murray will put Moreau next to Kopitar when Penner gets lazy or Gagne goes down. They are afraid he will supplant Clifford on the third line. The more I think about it, the more I realize these are probably very valid concerns.

    However I remain positive, as I always will, and know that used properly Moreau can’t really hurt us but can help a bit. Moreau has really done nothing in his career to inspire really deep intense feelings as a fan, so I’m not about to start wasting my emotions on him now.

  23. I just find it funny that people who obviously don’t know what Moreau has brought in his career or ever even (most likely) watched him in more than a handful of games are trying to tell me what he brings to the table. This is quite funny. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and I respect that.

    However, telling me that I am wrong in saying that signing him is a benefit because he brings veteran leadership and toughness to a young team that can use it, all for a paltry 600k, is ludicrous.

    My initial point was every winning team has bit players, who tend to be veterans, on their team, and a lot of times they tend to be paid a lot more.

    I don’t ever remember saying he was the savior, that he was going to put up 20 goals, or that he would play every day. Isn’t it funny that Kings fans complain that they don’t spend to the cap, yet they spend 600k on a quality presence (notice I didn’t say player?), and the flaming begins.

    We could get Crosby (pre-concussion) and you guys would still complain.

  24. Surly, I absolutely agree this should be be getting so much discussion. Unfortunately it is because it’s summer and people like me who have an unhealthy obsession with hockey have access to the internet.

    About Terry Murray paranoia, you make a good point. I mean, you’re on to something, but it’s not completely that either.

    Here’s where you’re dead on. A lot of Kings fans hear about this move, and they think, perfect. It’s insurance. A leader with some grit, he will only play 30 games, he won’t even play that if Loktionov or Parse give a better showing in training camp, and so on. He’s there if we need him just in case, but whenever I, the Kings fan, don’t want him in the lineup, or don’t want him taking Loktionov’s ice time, he won’t. He’s an as-needed player, perfect. But the reality is, like you said, when the GM signs a guy to a one-way contract especially, the coach generally plays him. Dean really should have tried for the two-way in this instance. Not saying Moreau would have taken it, but he should have tried. Anyway, Lombardi signs this guy to a one-way deal, maybe even in his mind he signed him to be an as-needed player, although I doubt it. My personal opinion is he signed him because he used to have some extra thread sewn into his jersey, and Lombardi romanticizes that to no end like a five year old Red Wings fan getting an Yzerman jersey with the C on it for Christmas back in 1998. But anyway maybe Lombardi signs him just to be the 13th guy too, the problem is he’s signing him to play on a team coached by someone who overvalues grit and veterans and leadership and defense even at the expense of all offense. Kings fans think signing this guy just guarantees he will also be used appropriately, but the fact that he’s signed and on the team now leads to the temptation of playing him. In other words, if he’s not on the team at all, there’s no way Terry Murray can mess up and misuse him to the point that he’s not only no longer a positive influence on the team, but a negative. Now that he is on the team, it’s bound to happen.

    It’s true it could happen with anyone, but this is where I think it goes a little further than Murray paranoia. The problem with Moreau is, although it could happen with anyone, Terry Murray’s margin for using Moreau positively is so small simply because Moreau is not a very good player. That’s the biggest issue. Moreau is not a very good player, and now that he’s on a one-way deal, no matter how you slice it he is most likely going to be taking away the spot of a better player. And you can say he’d just be taking Westgarth’s spot, so that’s actually an improvement after all, but that brings me to another problem. Now you have both Westgarth and Moreau on one-way contracts. You’re going to play both these guys in the same games? You’re going to have a Moreau – whoever – Westgarth line? You can’t have them on the same line, that’s an awful line. Does that mean Moreau gets bumped to the third line now in Murray’s line? Now he’s getting way too much ice time, and Brad Richardson doesn’t get the opportunity to impact the game positively.

    Essentially, signing him creates a sieve of potential problems. If the fourth line does end up with both Moreau and Westgarth on it, that means two things. One, either Loktionov or Parse has to sit out, so either way you are sitting a superior player to play an inferior one. That’s bad for the team. Two, now you basically have that scenario where you only have 50 minutes out of every game to score, when the other team has 60. It’s a pretty significant disadvantage. Not to mention, say the guy centering that line is Loktionov, you’re not just getting no offense from Moreau and Westgarth, the wings on that line, but you’re ruining any chance for Loktionov to produce. How is Loktionov, a playmaker, supposed to make plays with Westgarth and Moreau as his linemates? If he tries a quick give and go, the pass will come back to him in his feet. If he tries to set them up for a one-timer, they’ll miss the puck when they swing at it, and their momentum will flip them backwards head first into the ice. Now not is it a bad signing, but you’ve got a dead player, and Loktionov has to miss the rest of the season with guilt over making the pass that killed his teammate, which stunts his development. This signing is just opens a whole can of worms!

    So yes, one problem is we worry that Terry Murray won’t use Moreau properly. But I think the bigger problem is that there really is no way to use Moreau properly. Using him at all is perhaps innately improper and detrimental to the team. Maybe an exaggeration, like if you just used him shorthanded, not one second of even strength strength or powerplay ice time, that might be useful. That way he doesn’t hinder the offense at all, given that you’re probably not going to score on shorthanded anyway very often. Short of just having him there to play four minutes on the penalty kill every night and nothing else, which Terry Murray would never do anyway, you might have a problem.

    Still, if the fourth line is Parse-Loktionov-Moraeu, that’s probably better than that line with Westgarth. That would be the one plus to this. But then what, you have Westgarth a healthy scratch all season, counting against the cap? Not good either.

    I think one thing is certain, if Dean does not waive either Moreau or Westgarth before teh start of the training camp, they are doing the team a disservice. I actually really liked Westgarth’s personality when I saw him interviewed and all that, so it’s a tough thing, but if Dean really wanted to do right by him, he shouldn’t have signed Moreau. You just can’t have them both in the lineup at the same time. That’s one too many offense-killers.

    • I think a better question is how is Lokti going to be a playmaker on the 4th line?

      Answer: Manchester

    • I’m not sure i understand why anyone cares that it is a one-way contract. Btw, has this even been officially announced yet? Anywho, the one way contract aspect only affects AEG’s pocketbook. It only means that they are paying him 600k for the year regardless of whether he plays for the Kings or for Manchester. It has nothing to do with his waiver eligibility. Moreau would be subject to waivers on a two way deal (assuming waivers is why anyone cares).

    • How can the Moreau signing be any worse than:

      The Cloutier signing

      The Poni signing

      The Nagy signing

      The Halpern trade

      Moreau is not 40, compared to Westgarth he’s Tesla

  25. Kingsfaninportland,

    Again you’re twisting facts. “I just find it funny that people who obviously don’t know what Moreau has brought in his career”–Let me stop you right there. No disrespect, but you’re already wrong. You’re already confusing yourself and thinking you’re making a good point, when you’re not. Because, you want to know who else brought a lot in his career, in fact a lot more than Ethan Moreau? How about we use Bobby Orr as an example. But guess what, signing him now, at age 63, would not help the Kings in the least.

    Do you understand what I’m saying? “What Moreau has brought in his career,” your words, not mine, means absolutely zilch in regards to whether or not he’s a good signing for the Kings now at this point. Because what he brought in his “career” when he was at his best, for example say from the late 90s to a few years ago, is not what he brings now. Like I wrote right there, his career goes back to the 1990s. What does his game then at 25 or 30 have anything to do with his game at 36? Jaromir Jagr at age 39 is returning to the NHL this season, I bet in your mind he should have gotten ten million a year. Except 39 year old Jaromir Jagr is not 29 year old Jaromir Jagr. This Ethan Moreau argument, “I just find it funny that people who obviously don’t know what Moreau has brought in his career,” would be the same as saying to someone, “I can’t believe you don’t think the Kings should have signed Jaromir Jagr for 10 million this season. You obviously don’t know what Jagr has brought in his career!”

    It’s an illogical argument. You don’t play the game on the ice with your career. You play it with skating and your stick talent and your passing ability and your hockey sense and all around talent. I do know what Moreau brought at his peak. If we were getting Moreau at his peak, I would feel better about the signing, although let’s not pretend like he ever brought anything exceptional on the ice. He has a career high of 32 points. You say he’s not supposed to be a good offensive player, fine, he’s a career -12, with a career high of +13. Doesn’t mean everything, I know, but it certainly tells you something.

    Overall, the problem with your “career” argument is we’re not getting what you’re pretending is Moreau’s illustrious career to go play for the Kings on the ice, we’re getting Moreau the player at the very end of his career, age 36, coming off a bad injury, not having played competitive hockey in however many months. There’s a big difference. The fact you actually tried to bring what he did five or ten years ago into the conversation indicates you don’t understand this.

    • It actually means a lot, which you continually fail to realize.

      You do know we have one of the youngest teams in the league right?

      You do know last year that during the regular season, the team yoyo’ed up and down, streaks of wins streaks of losses.

      You do know that, during the playoffs, we “could” have beat the Sharks, but the Kings chose to beat themselves instead.

      Why?

      Well I happen to believe the answer is that it was due to a lack of maturity due to their young ages. You can say all you want, but it is a proven fact that winning teams have bit veteran players on them, good or bad. I don’t even care if Moreau can play or not, I truly don’t.

      I never once said his value is in his play; and for 600k, I would sure hope it’s not.

      A solution to the problem of our lack of mental fortitude is to infuse some veteran leadership into the young guys. Oh, and what was Moreau while in Edmonton? A captain? Huh, crazy… And did he not win an award, the King Clancy Memorial Trophy, for his leadership abilities? What do the Kings lack? Veteran leadership? Huh… interesting concept.

      Moreau has never been a scoring forward, and TM knows that. While I do agree TM makes questionable decisions in regards to his lineups, I would hope, at least this year, our first two lines are fairly set, with the exception of Williams and Brown maybe changing lines a few times. That leaves the 3rd and 4th line to tweaks, which I don’t necessarily disagree with. The best players should be rewarded for their play. I’d bet that Clifford and Stoll never leave the 3rd line, So that really leaves the 4th line to tweaks, and in general, the RW position.

      So please stop telling me that I am saying things I’m not. I’ve had time to read your long retorts, and I’ve got to be honest, you’ve said many things that never came out of my mouth (or my hands). I like your dedication, but it would be appreciated if you would not resort to word twisting and baseless assumptions of the twisting, because it makes it hard to reply to your responses to my beliefs when you’ve twisted them around in the first place. How can I respond to something that I never said?

  26. Is it truly that big of a deal to sit Westgarth some nights and sit Moreau others? First, it’s not your money, so you shouldn’t be worried about that. You fail to realize what I have said time and time again.

    His value is not in the regular season.

    I’ll say it again. His value is not in the regular season.

    Being such a fan of hockey as you claim to be, you should realize practice plays a big part in games, with travel, that camaraderie plays a big part in the overall team spirit, and have a veteran come playoff time will 90% of the time be better than a fresh rookie.

    His value is not in the regular season.

  27. Kingsportland,

    Contrary to popular belief, Loktionov is just as fast on the fourth line as on the second line, he uses the same stick, the same skates. Kyle Wellwood was a very good playmaker for the Sharks last season on their third line because he had another skill player with him. But that’s perhaps a bad example. Why am I thinking a third line example when the Cup winners themselves present a 4th line example?

    Meet Rich Peverley, fourth line playmaker for the Boston Bruins.

    The mentality that the fourth line has to be all enforcers and grinders with no skill is a very narrow one. It’s not true at all. The Vancouver Canucks had an awful fourth line last season, but the lone bright spot in limited ice time was Cody Hodgson. Hodgson is a young finesse player like Loktionov, so you couldn’t find a better comparable, and he played the fourth line not only in the regular season, but in the playoffs. Rich Peverley, on the other Cup Finalist, is a similar type of player, another good comparison.

    Im not the Loktionov’s number one fan or anything, but with another year under his belt I imagine he’s even a bit better now, and there’s no reason he or any other skill player can’t play on the fourth line. In fact skill on the fourth line is a good thing. Skill is a good thing, period.

    • You are right. Skill is a good thing. Boston had arguably the best 4th line in hockey, so I understand that.

      While I have questions about Lokti, my whole point isn’t he should be in Manchester because he sucks and doesn’t deserve a spot on the Kings roster; rather, he should be there because he needs to work on various aspects of his game, and he has a higher chance of doing that playing big minutes with less talent around then small minutes against bigger talent. Just my opinion.

      Another reason is this: With Stoll being a FA next year (I’m pretty sure), this spot can be filled by Lokti should the Kings choose not to re-sign Stoll. Maybe I’m in the minority, I don’t know, but I like Stoll, for the right price, I’d keep him. But say they don’t resign him. That leaves a spot open for Lewis or Lokti. Either way, the best either player will become is a 3rd line center. I truly believe one of them is expendable. I have not seen enough Lokti playing C to say it is him or Lewis. But one of them is for sure expendable.

      Skill is a good thing, but it has to be used right for it to be useful. Too many examples to prove that, but just look at a couple of the guys we let go and their season last year in other places.

  28. I will say this. We will be lucky to win a cup with TM. I do not believe he is the coach to bring us to the glory land. His excuse has been he hasn’t had the right players, and while I agree, I still think he made a lot of bad decisions.

    I had my doubts about DL, but he has quieted those.

  29. Kingsfaninportland,

    “Having a veteran come playoff time will 90% of the time be better than a fresh rookie.”

    Yeah, they already have veterans, case closed.

    Again you’re basically saying, because he’s a good guy during practice, and a good leader, the team will be better. What about his play? He is going to take someone’s roster spot. He has to be able to play. You seem to completely overvalue off ice leadership, and undervalue the whole “playing the game” thing.

    “Is it truly that big of a deal to sit Westgarth some nights and sit Moreau others?”

    Not huge, but it is just flat out wasting over 500k in cap space for the year. Moreover, how do you know Murray will sit one out for another? How do you know he won’t make a bad decision and play both of them most nights? That would absolutely be a big deal. It would be bad for the team, no other way to put it.

    “First, it’s not your money, so you shouldn’t be worried about that.”

    I’m sorry, but what a stupid thing to say. I guess Dean should have just signed Moreau to a 10 million dollar per year deal then, give Doughty 12 million, buy out Jack Johnson and then re-sign him to 12 million a year.

    I shouldn’t dignify this with a response, but here goes. I’m not worried about the money, in fact I am all in favor of them spending more money to lower cap hits (frontloading in other words). All I’m worried about is cap hits, because each player is only as good as his ability in relation to his cap hit. In other words, a bad cap hit ruins a player. Who is a better player, Scott Parse or Scott Gomez? Scott Gomez is clearly a better player despite his shortcomings, but you wouldn’t trade Scott Parse for him in a million years despite this. Why? Cap hit. Gomez is a better player, but Parse is a better value, and that’s all that matters. A 12 million dollar cap hit for say Mike Richards would ruin him so badly the team would be better off trading him. A player that is a source of happiness for fans that they have him on their team become a source of sadness, all because of cap hit. As long as we’re under a cap system, you can’t discuss a player’s worth to his team without keeping his cap hit in mind.

    In this case however, it’s not the cap hit that’s the issue, it’s the player’s ability, and all the other reasons and scenarios I outlined. Either you understand them or you don’t. It seems to be the latter. You’re obviously very closed minded about this so I’ll leave you to your opinion.

    • He doesn’t have to play, he can sit in the press box.

      And I brought up the money for a reason. I knew you would respond with “that’s a stupid thing to say” and then bring up how its a waste of 600k, all in two paragraphs of each other.

      You are contradicting yourself sir. I think you want to argue so much that you forget what you actually believe.

      As far as your cap hit argument, you are right and wrong in that.

      Smyth is not worth 4.5 mil (or whatever he makes). This is an obvious. But, to Edmonton and its fans, he is. It is like the Messiah arose from death to the glory land to lead his people. As far as Gomez goes, if he would have produced, he would have been a decent signing. He failed. There is a difference between signing someone for an obvious overpayment, which there are plenty of examples of, and signing someone based off one or two years of production, who then tank it. While I don’t think Gomez was worth the money in the first place, I do understand the overpayment to some extent and why they did. It obviously failed.

      We can agree to disagree. You think I’m an idiot, that’s fine. I think your misguided, that’s fine.

  30. Last thought , Im not even saying I disagree that the Kings needed to add another good player with size to their fourth line, because I dont. Im just saying Dean clearly picked the wrong one. He would have been so much better off sending a 5th or 6th round pick to a rebuilding team for a good fourth liner in his prime.

    • You could be right, there may have been better choices.

      Maybe Dean did try, but being as a lot of players don’t want to play in LA, maybe Moreau was the best option available. Being as we aren’t in the front office, I don’t think it is fair to assume what he did or didn’t do. You know what they say when you assume…

      I just feel you aren’t seeing the reasoning behind why he signed this player. He didn’t sign him for his strength (or lack of) of play, he signed him for leadership. Something he has proven in his years of service wearing the C and A and has been awarded for with a trophy.

      But I don’t want to make this a “fuck you you’re wrong” “no fuck you you’re wrong” argument. It really isn’t a big deal what we are talking about;\, like the Colin Fraser bullshit. We are just passionate fans who disagree.

    • cont… The real question is, as you and Surly said, how will TM use him. I think I know why DL signed him, but TM is a whole nother person to worry about. If he uses him wrong, I think it is on TM, not DL.

      This may be a shitty analogy, most of mine usually are… but if a friend of mine was sick, was coughing, and needed me to buy him some cough medicine, I’d go out and buy him some. If he chose to drink the whole bottle to get high, and had to go to the hospital, it’s not my fault,even though I bought it and gave it to him.

      In the same aspect, DL, based off my belief, got Moreau for a certain reason, not his playing ability. Now what TM does with him is another thing. So I can agree that TM is the root of all evil, and he is hiding Saddam’s WMD’s. J/k.

      That was probably a shitty comparison, but it’s all good.

  31. kingsfaninportland,

    First off, I appreciate you handling our discussion with class and not insulting. As for your points…

    “And I brought up the money for a reason. I knew you would respond with “that’s a stupid thing to say” and then bring up how its a waste of 600k, all in two paragraphs of each other.
    You are contradicting yourself sir. I think you want to argue so much that you forget what you actually believe.”

    It’s a good theory but it’s not true. You simply misunderstand what I said. I will explain. Ethan Moreau’s 600k cap hit, I do not have a problem with the price for the player, as I said. What I said I had a small problem with was wasting about 500k of cap space for the year not on Moreau but on having Westgarth sitting in the press box all season taking up cap space on his one-way contract. Do you understand what I mean?

    600k, basically league minimum, is an acceptable cap hit for basically anyone. You can’t go much lower so that’s about as acceptable as it gets. I have stated I’m not a big fan of Moreau the player at this stage in his career, but given that the team already signed him and there’s nothing anybody can do about it, it’s good that the cap hit is basically the minimum. In that sense, I am fine with the cap hit despite not liking the player. The problem I stated is not Moreau’s cap hit, but the fact you now have both Moreau and Westgarth on one-way contracts. I said the biggest problem that presents is that Terry Murray would play them both in the same games. I believe we both agreed that would be bad for the team. Your answer to that, however, was not that it meant the Moreau signing was bad, just that it meant Terry Murray could alternate playing them, only play one in each game, and have the other sit. That is what I was referring to. If you noticed when I specified the amount of cap space that would be wasted when I initially explained this in an earlier comment, I wrote down around 500k, not 600k. That’s because Kevin Westgarth is making 525k or something like that. That’s how you can know I was referring to the cap space that would be wasted if Westgarth was a healthy scratch all season. However, in your recommended scenario Where Terry Murray alternates playing these guys, the cap space wasted would be slightly different, the difference between 525k and 600k or whatever the exact values are.

    I hope that explains it. I do not mind Moreau’s cap hit in and of itself. It’s as good a cap hit as you can get for any player. My issue was that now the Kings have stuck themselves in a scenario where they either have to play both Moreau and Westgarth every game, or waste cap space (or waive one of them, but I doubt Dean would do that). So it’s not Moreau’s cap hit that bothers me, it’s wasting cap space on someone who does not play. If Moreau sits half the games as a healthy scratch with a 600k cap hit, and Westgarth sits half the games with a 525k cap hit, that’s the same as paying one player making 566k to not play for the entire season. So that’s the problem I described. It’s not a problem with Moreau’s cap hit, it’s a problem with wasting cap space on players who aren’t playing. It’s essentially spending money and cap space on a 21st player to not play all season long. It’s a waste. And unless the Kings waive one of these two players, they will either end up doing this, or worse, playing them both in most of the games, which I believe we both agreed would be a big problem. And we agreed that’s a big problem that’s bad for the team, that means if it ends up happening as a result of the Moreau signing, the Moreau signing is a bad signing, plain and simple.

    Do you follow?

    “As far as your cap hit argument, you are right and wrong in that.
    Smyth is not worth 4.5 mil (or whatever he makes). This is an obvious. But, to Edmonton and its fans, he is. It is like the Messiah arose from death to the glory land to lead his people. As far as Gomez goes, if he would have produced, he would have been a decent signing. He failed. There is a difference between signing someone for an obvious overpayment, which there are plenty of examples of, and signing someone based off one or two years of production, who then tank it. While I don’t think Gomez was worth the money in the first place, I do understand the overpayment to some extent and why they did. It obviously failed.”

    Portland, I don’t even get why you posted this. What part of this exactly is supposed to make what I said even partially wrong? I hope you realize you’ve now even tried to argue that players are only as helpful to their team as their ability in relation to their cap hit. Notice I said how helpful (or important, or valuable) to their team, not their fans. I’ll get back to that in a minute. But you’re now arguing something obvious and accepted. The only exception to what I’m discussing is teams that don’t spend to the ceiling. Like the Oilers currently, these teams can afford to take on bad cap hits because they weren’t going to use that cap space anyway.

    “Smyth is not worth 4.5 mil (or whatever he makes). This is an obvious. But, to Edmonton and its fans, he is. It is like the Messiah arose from death to the glory land to lead his people.”

    To Edmonton’s fans. I never said cap hit mattered to fans. I said cap hit in relation to ability determines how valuable a player is to his team, not just ability alone. The only time I mentioned fans is to say if a player has too big of a cap hit in relation to his ability, intelligent fans would realize he’s bad for the team and no longer be glad to have him. Edmonton’s fans are extremely happy to have Smyth back, like you stated, because they love him, like you stated, but also because the team is nowhere near the cap ceiling! They are in a rebuild. They don’t care about Smyth’s cap hit because it does not affect their team negatively right now. Smyth could be making 8 million, they wouldn’t care because their team does not need that cap space. However, if the Oilers were trying to win a Cup next season, and up against the cap, you can be sure there would be a lot more more concern about Smyth’s cap hit.

    Now back to the fans. Hopefully you can agree with me or accept this when I say, I have been talking about player value. A player’s value to his team. I used the word value many times, I said a player’s value to his team is the player’s ability in relation to his cap hit. So it’s something like player ability divided by his cap hit equals the player’s value to his team. So what comes after the equals sign? The player’s value to his team. That’s what I’m talking about.

    Now, value itself is objective. Sometimes its very difficult for fans to determine a player’s value, and that’s where there are subjective opinions. But the player does have a certain value to the team, even if we can’t quantify it. It’s objective. 2 is a value, and it equals 2. That’s objective. No subjective opinion. So when I say cap hits matter for a player’s value to his team, that value is objective. But when you talk about whether the cap hit matters to the fans, like how you said how the fans don’t care about Smyth’s value because they love him (and I added because they’re not spending to the cap anyway), that’s subjective. It’s a completely different thing. I don’t care if the fans love Smyth, or if they are fine with his cap hit, it doesn’t mean he is good value to a cap team at that cap hit. I was talking strictly about the player’s value to his team, not the fans. That’s why you arguing this, and bringing up Smyth and the fans love for him, has absolutely nothing to do with what I’m talking about.

    So, to summarize.

    A. If the Edmonton Oilers don’t mind Ryan Smyth’s cap hit, it is because the Edmonton Oilers don’t care about cap hits right now, period. All they care about is salary because they aren’t spending to the cap, or even close. They are rebuilding. They don’t have to worry about cap hits because they aren’t close to the cap limit. I can’t think of a great analogy, but say you’re doing a secret santa thing, and everyone has a $100 limit to spend on one present for someone. If there’s a present that is worth $40, but the store is selling it for $60, as long as you have the money to spend the extra $10, you don’t worry too much about it because even at $60, it’s still $40 under the maximum. The only time you worry about it is if you see something worth $90, but the store is asking $110. Right now, for the Oilers, Ryan Smyth is worth $40, but they are okay paying $60 because they weren’t planning to use that extra $20 on anyone else anyway, and certainly not the other $40. To a cup contender, it’s the 90/110 example. Awful example but hopefully this allows you to finally understand what I’m talking about.
    B. Even if the Oilers were spending to the cap and they still thought Ryan Smyth’s was good value, well, either he’s playing really well and they are right, or more likely, they are wrong. If they think his cap hit is good value when it really isn’t, maybe because of their love for Smyth, which was part of your argument, that does not disprove what I said at all. Remember, value is objective here. All that would mean is they are wrong. Smyth’s cap hit (in relation to his ability) would still play a big part in determining his value to his team like I said, the Oilers would just be misjudging that value. You’re missing this. Maybe you’re saying the fact that Smyth is loved by Edmonton makes him inherently more valuable. To the city, and the fans, sure, but that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about value to the team on the ice. And wowzers now that I think about it, it doesn’t even matter if I am. Okay, say the fact that the team loves him, the organization likes him, gives him more value, like you argue. It still doesn’t have anything to do with what I’m saying, but let’s say it’s true. Okay, maybe that love and leadership does make him worth what he’s making right now, in this hypothetical example. But does it make him worth 12 million per year? No way, that’s more than 3 million more than what Crosby makes. So we’ve established even if he is worth 6.3 million or whatever to Edmonton in this hypothetical example, he’s still not worth 12 million. Well, that means cap hit still matters. If Smyth was making 12 million per year, even in Edmonton he would have negative value to the team strictly because of his cap hit. So even Ryan Smyth in Edmonton, on your terms, bringing the fans love and all these other things that aren’t even related to what I was talking about, even under those circumstances,, cap hit still matters. All you’re saying is the value scale changes for Ryan Smyth in Edmonton compared to other places. Even if that were true, and it’s not true in terms of objective value to the team on the ice, but even if it subjective value did somehow impact objective value, you still haven’t disproved my point, which is that cap hit impacts value.

    “There is a difference between signing someone for an obvious overpayment, which there are plenty of examples of, and signing someone based off one or two years of production, who then tank it.”

    That’s true, but again it doesn’t really have anything to do with my point. All you’re saying is sometimes signings seem like good value at the time, and then turn out not to be. Yes, of course. But what does it have to do with my point? Objective value fluctuates. I wasn’t talking about trading Scott Parse of today for Scott Gomez of four seasons ago. I was talking about Scott Gomez now. Scott Gomez, post-tanking, is still a better player than Scott Parse, but you would not trade Scott Parse for Scott Gomez right now despite that because Scott Gomez, post-tanking, is now awful value due to his cap hit. Scott Gomez post-tanking is still an above average player, so if he was only making 600k, he would be great value, and you would trade Parse for him. But because he is making over 7 million against the cap, he is awful value, and you would never trade anything besides an even worse value contract for him. And please don’t say but someone did. Yes, they did. By you would never trade anything for him, I meant someone not an idiot would never. Bob Gainey made an awful mistake trading for him. Just because he traded for him does not mean Gomez was worth his cap hit. Again, value is objective. Gainey just misjudged it. Just because one person thought Gomez was worth his contract does not mean he has provided production or value to his team worth that contract.

    So yes, sometimes you think players are worth something, you give them a big contract, and they turn out to be. Sometimes they are worth something, you give them a big contract, and then they stop playing well and they aren’t worth it anymore. What this is we’re talking about here is a., subjective GMs who issue contracts misjudging a player’s value, b., the GM getting the value right at the time, but then the value changing after the contract. Neither of things disprove my point that cap hits factor greatly into a player’s value to his team.

    So again, look, you seem like a good dude and I appreciate you can have a respectful conversation, but you’re arguing just obvious stuff that should not be argued. Cap hit impacts player value, it’s not a complex or foreign concept. Everyone knows this. I dont know why you are just picking arguments for no reason.

    I mean at least with Ethan Moreau, you were arguing something subjective, whether he’s a good player still, whether he’s a good signing. Although, even there, we, or I, did distill things to some objective concepts (like the Kings will either have to waive someone, or play Moreau and Westgarth in the same games, or waste over 500k in cap space on non-playing players, as a result of the Moreau signing). Given all three of those are negatives, two objective negatives (waiving a player and wasting cap space are both negative things you dont want to do, for different reasons), and one we both agreed was a negative. So given all three of those are negatives, and all those negatives are a result of the Moreau signing, we already have some objective, factual negatives about the Moreau signing. But at least they weren’t obvious so it’s understandable people would disagree about Moreau. But cap hits impacting player value? I don’t get it. Why would you start arguing that?

    “You could be right, there may have been better choices.
    Maybe Dean did try, but being as a lot of players don’t want to play in LA, maybe Moreau was the best option available. Being as we aren’t in the front office, I don’t think it is fair to assume what he did or didn’t do. You know what they say when you assume…”

    Portland, do you not understand how trades work? Just a question, and I think a fair one.
    A. A lot of players don’t have LA as their first choice, absolutely true, but it’s not like it’s every player’s last choice either. When a lot of players don’t pick LA, those are stars with other options, usually out East. What we’re talking about here are lower line guys. They mostly can’t be as picky, and are usually just looking to go somewhere for fair money where they have a chance to win and play. Also, back to the stars, when people say “LA is not a destination yet,” what they mean is, there is usually going to be at least one of the big, super desirable teams also bidding on these stars, like New York because of their location and travel, or Detroit because of their culture, or whoever else, and LA is not preferred over these places yet. However, after these top five-ten teams that are the most desirable, comes LA. It’s all relative. When the Kings are bidding up against the Rangers, you’re right, they aren’t desirable. New Jersey, which Kovalchuk chose, is also out East. But they also offered 20 million more or something like that, so that’s the biggest reason he went there. In fact reports all that year was Kovalchuk and his wife wanted to come to LA. LA may have just gotten outbid. But the point is, when it’s LA vs the Rangers, they are undesirable. When it’s LA vs many other teams, LA is very desirable. It’s an up and coming young team that people think can contend now, and it’s in LA. Maybe it doesn’t appeal to the culture of laid back hockey players, i.e Brad Richards, as much as it does American “I want it all” basketball players or baseball, but it’s still got a lot going for it. When I heard Dean Lombardi showed an amazing video with Kobe in it showing off the glamor of LA to Brad Richards, I was excited. When I watched Brad Richards get interviewed, and realized what a laid-back, humble, country type of guy he was, I started to worry very much that the video actually did harm, not good. Showing a laid back guy a video like that probably just turned him off. Anyway, point A., LA is desirable, not just the most. But more important is B.

    B. None of that matters to this discussion. I just wrote it to educate you. It does not matter if LA is desirable, at all, here. When players are traded, they do not get to pick where they go. They have to go unless they have a no-trade clause, which almost no fourth liners have. So it doesn’t matter if someone wants to come to LA or not. Dean Lombardi finds a fourth liner he likes that the team will trade for a 5th or 6th round pick, like Doug Wilson paid for Ben Eager (who was considered an elite fourth liner at the time after being absolutely fantastic for Chicago in their cup run the year before). If you don’t understand concepts like this, that’s a big reason why you would like the Moreau signing. If you don’t understand how easily they could have gotten someone way better in his prime, then why would you be upset? Ignorance breeds happiness with the signing in this case. Because I did know from the start of this conversation that Dean could have gotten someone much better for just a pick, that’s one of many reasons I’m not pleased with it. But it’s a very big reason.

    So that’s what you’re missing. Players aren’t allowed to pick where they’re traded. They have to go to wherever their team trades them unless they have a no-trade clause. Almost no bottom line players have no trade clauses. Could you imagine Scott Parse and Kevin Westgarth having no-trade clauses? That’s what I mean. They rarely do. Maybe none. Probably one or two longtime veterans of a team, but it’s rare.

    So, with that in mind, this is not true. “Being as we aren’t in the front office, I don’t think it is fair to assume what he did or didn’t do.” We don’t know what he did or didn’t do, but more importantly, we do know what he could have done. I’m not pretending to know what phone calls he made. All I’m saying is he could have traded a pick for a better fourth line center instead of signing Moreau. And actually, if you look at it it’s pretty obvious, since he did sign Moreau, and since no trade has been announced, well……

    “I don’t think it is fair to assume what he did or didn’t do.” Except we don’t have to assume. We do know what he didn’t do, he didn’t trade a pick for a better fourth liner. We know he could have because it happens all the time, and we know he didn’t because well, he didn’t. False assumptions do make asses out of us, that’s why I always base my claims in logic. Did I say Dean Lombardi should trade a 7th round pick for Sidney Crosby? No, because nothing like that ever happens, and it would never happen. I said he should trade a late pick for a fourth liner. If that didn’t happen every season, I wouldn’t have suggested it because I wouldn’t have the basis upon which to know how realistic the idea is. But because it does happen, and I know it is possible, I suggested it. I’m not making stupid assumptions. Portland maybe you have to have a little faith in me here, in my knowledge of this stuff, maybe even consider the possibility that I know more than you about it. Not because I’m smarter or anything, I’m not saying that, but maybe I just pay a lot more attention to it and think about it a lot? Would you hesitate to admit, or feel any shame in admitting, that a rocket scientist who spends 12 hours every day studying science knows more about science and rockets than you do? Of course not. It doesn’t mean he’s smarter or better than you, he just spends more time doing it and he’s better. And because he spends so much time studying science, he’s probably not as good as you at the things excel in.

    So maybe consider that’s what’s going on here. I dont want to pump my tires here, and I’m not going to say much about this in detail at all for that reason, but what I am trying to say is just, I know this stuff inside and out. Im sure there are people on the internet who know a lot more about it than the people I know in person, but just in terms of those people I know in person, no one I know knows this stuff 1/10 as well as I do. The discussion is probably over so it’s probably a moot point anyway, it’s late and I only checked this before signing off the computer for today and decided to respond a final time, but if we do converse more in the future, it would probably help things if you could just trust that I’m not making false claims, or suggesting unrealistic things, or any of that. Just by default, I dont do that. I never do when it comes to hockey. Like the one thing of the 50 things we’ve argued that makes sense to me why you would argue is about leadership, how much value and leadership and veteran presence has. Because this goes back to what I was describing, value and leadership do have an objective value for each player depending on what they do as the season goes on and all that. It’s just impossible to quantity perfectly, especially without being in the clubhouse. And the subjective part is where fans like us have opinions on how valuable that stuff is. I happen to think for think it’s valuable, but that it’s not valuable enough to be worth signing a vet/leader at the expense of on-ice play. In other words, I’m all for bringing in a good player who is also a really good leader, but I am not for bringing in a leader just because he’s a leader, even if he can’t play anymore. But that’s the subjective part. And that’s why you can argue it and I have no problem. Because subjective things are debatable, and it’s something I could be wrong about. Maybe the Kings need someone like this so badly that it will be worth poor on-ice play. It’s subjective and we can’t know for sure, and it makes complete sense that there would be differing opinions.

    It’s the objective parts that I don’t understand you arguing. I say cap hits impact a player’s value to his team under the cap system (at least for teams spending to the cap), and you say yes and no. Sorry, and no disrespect at all, but it’s just yes. There isn’t any room to argue here. It’s quantifiable, mathematical. If Drew Doughty gets 60 million a year, Drew Doughty is still just as good a player as he is right now, so if cap hits did not affect his value to his team, he would be just as valuable. Except, in this scenario, with him at 60 million a year with a 64 million salary cap, you no longer have the salary cap space to keep Kopitar or Mike Richards, or most anyone else. Is Drew Doughty worse losing Kopitar and Mike Richards and everyone else? No. And what was the cause of having to lose all those players? It wasn’t Drew Doughty the man. Drew Doughty was on the team last year, and the Kings didn’t have to move Kopitar out. So it’s not Drew Doughty the man that forced Kopitar out in this example, it was Drew Doughty the 60 million cap hit. Therefore in this example his cap hit affected his value.

    A less extreme, more realistic example is this. Instead of 6 million per year, putting the Kings at the cap (in this hypothetical example), Doughty gets 3.6 million more, for 9.6 million total. Now that Kings have to move 3.6 million in cap room, or Jarret Stoll, to get under the cap and keep Doughty. Is Drew Doughty worth having to get rid of Stoll? In my mind, of course. But his worth isn’t as good as if the Kings could have kept him and Stoll.

    To put it in a simple, mathematical, factual equation: Doughty and Stoll is > just Doughty. Doughty and Stoll for 9.6 million is better value than just Doughty for 9.6 million, because with Doughty and Stoll, you’re getting more for your 9.6 million. You’re getting Doughty and Stoll, instead of just Doughty, for the same amount of money. So you’re getting “more,” and another way to say “more” in this instance is to say you’re getting “better value.” So that’s just math, undeniable fact. Cap hit affects a player’s value to his team. If Doughty and Stoll = more value per 9.6 million, but Doughty’s cap hit goes up to 9.6 million and you have to get rid of Stoll, so now you’re only getting Doughty for 9.6 million… well, if were getting Doughty and Stoll for 9.6 million, but because of Doughty’s increased cap hit you can only have Doughty for 9.6 million, that means you are now getting “less,” or “less value” because of Drew Doughty’s cap hit. I.e Doughty’s cap hit gives him less value.

    So it’s math, fact, like I said. You can’t argue facts, but you tried. That’s what I don’t understand. You can argue the value of leadership all you want because it’s subjective, but why are you arguing facts? Did you not realize they were facts until I explained the math behind them? It’s okay to admit yes. You wouldn’t be ashamed to admit to a rocket scientist that you didn’t understand one of their science theories, so you don’t need to be in this instance either. I mean this isn’t rocket science but the concept of it’s okay to know less if you spend less time learning it still applies.

    And then there’s the “We have no way of knowing what Lombardi didn’t do” stuff. Of course we do know what he didn’t do, but I think you meant what he did do. We also do know some of that, that he signed Moreau, for instance. But you were right we don’t know who he calls and all that. The problem is you were again arguing this when there wasn’t really anything to argue. I never made a claim like “I know he talked to the Red Wings, and he could have had Darren Helm for a 5th round pick, but he refused to do the trade, and he signed Moreau instead.” I was never talking about what he did do. I was talking about what he should have done. But you tried to argue that too. I suggested he should have traded a late round pick for a good fourth liner. That he could have done this is not an absolute fact like the value thing, but it’s close. It is technically conjecture, but past precedent and logic suggests he could have done this, if not immediately, then during the season, after training camp, after the GMs evaluate their teams and decide who they’d be willing to trade. The season doesn’t start until after training camp anyway, so Lombardi could have waited until then. But that’s really a moot point because odds are people were already available now.

    So like I said, fourth liners get traded for draft picks every season. It happens a lot. There are a lot of rebuilding teams whose number one priorities are to stockpile extra draft picks. They are more than happy to trade a veteran for a draft pick. Everyone knows this, it happens all the time, so when I simply suggested Dean Lombardi should have joined the party and done this himself, why would you argue that and try to make excuses on his behalf? Like we’re not in his office, we don’t know what goes on, and all that. We do know that trades like this happen all the time, and that there are always teams looking to trade their fourth liners for draft picks! That’s the pertinent information to what I suggested, but you made out like I didn’t know enough of the inner workings to be able to suggest something like that. But I did. It happens all the time, these players don’t cost much at all in trades when they are traded, so it’s a more than reasonable suggestion to make that Dean Lombardi should have traded for someone better. It’s not as absolute iron clad as the value thing, but it’s 99% there. I don’t understand why you would argue that either.

    So I wish you would just have a little faith that I know what Im talking about here.

    “cont… The real question is, as you and Surly said, how will TM use him. I think I know why DL signed him, but TM is a whole nother person to worry about. If he uses him wrong, I think it is on TM, not DL.
    This may be a shitty analogy, most of mine usually are… but if a friend of mine was sick, was coughing, and needed me to buy him some cough medicine, I’d go out and buy him some. If he chose to drink the whole bottle to get high, and had to go to the hospital, it’s not my fault,even though I bought it and gave it to him.
    In the same aspect, DL, based off my belief, got Moreau for a certain reason, not his playing ability. Now what TM does with him is another thing. So I can agree that TM is the root of all evil, and he is hiding Saddam’s WMD’s. J/k.
    That was probably a shitty comparison, but it’s all good.”

    This is actually a great analogy, so props to you for that. I mean the cough medicine thing.

    You’re right, yes, TM bares some responsibility if he overuses the player. But a big problem with it is also on Dean, because in one respect he’s not giving Terry Murray a choice.

    Remember, it’s like I said earlier, if Terry Murray sits one of Westgarth or Ethan Moreau every game, that is the same as wasting over 500k per game. But if he plays both of them in the same game, I believe we both agreed that would be very bad.

    So basically Terry Murray has to decide between two bad decisions! You see? He has to decide between wasting cap space, and playing them both at once, both less than ideal options, both of which were put in place by Lombardi. Essentially what Im saying is, Dean Lombardi has put Terry Murray in a bad position, period. Whether Terry Murray makes the best of the bad situation, or turns it into a bigger mess, is on him. But at the root of this is Dean Lombardi putting Murray in a bad position. So that’s where it’s not just Terry Murray who determines whether this is a good signing or not. By signing Moreau to a one-way contract (which means he cannot be demoted to the AHL and then brought back up whenever they need him, he has to stay on the Kings roster all season unless they waive him) when they already have Westgarth on a one-way contract as well, Dean Lombardi created an inherent problem: either waive someone, waste cap space, or play both these guys at the same time. None of those are good options. Terry Murray has no good option to pick from! That’s the problem! I hate to say it but his best option is probably just to waste the cap space and alternate them. You never, ever want to waste cap space, but that’s the best option here. Well, unless you don’t care about winning the pacific division or the regular season at all beyond making the playoffs. Then you could play them both, not be as good a team but save the cap space, and then in the playoffs sit one of them.

    But here’s the other problem with that. When you’re an NHL coach, and your GM signs someone to a one-way contract, that’s sort of a message to you, this guy is staying in the NHL all season no matter what, I signed him to a NHL-only contract, maybe I even put a little bit of my reputation on the line signing this old guy, you better find a regular spot for him in your lineup because you’re stuck with him. I know it’s easy for you to suggest they just alternate, and that’s what I would do too if I were Murray, probably even play Moreau a little bit more, but there’s no guarantee Murray would do that. Of course sitting Westgarth for 70 games or so would be a way for Murray to “find a spot” for Moreau no matter what, so that might work well in terms of everything besides that you’re still wasting cap space. But again, no guarantee Murray will use Moreau correctly. Like I said in an earlier post, when you have players who aren’t the greatest players, as a coach your margin for using that player correctly is very small. That’s why unlike you I prefer bringing players who are talented first, and good leaders second, not leaders first, and good players second or not at all.

    Longest post ever? Some of it is quoting Portland, but it’s still pretty long. Portland I hope you understand me better now and can trust the things I say a little more. Surly and Bobby, any new posts monday? I loved the Helene interview, and I’ve been waiting all summer to hear some thoughts on Voynov, as the ten seconds of footage of him on youtube makes him look like an absolutely amazing skater. Keep up the good work! And thanks again Bobby, very much appreciated.

  32. Sorry let me correct part of this.

    A. If the Edmonton Oilers don’t mind Ryan Smyth’s cap hit, it is because the Edmonton Oilers don’t care about cap hits right now, period. All they care about is salary because they aren’t spending to the cap, or even close. They are rebuilding. They don’t have to worry about cap hits because they aren’t close to the cap limit. I can’t think of a great analogy, but say you’re doing a secret santa thing, and everyone has a $100 limit to spend on one present for someone. If there’s a present that is worth $40, but the store is selling it for $60, as long as you have the money to spend the extra $20, you don’t worry too much about it because even at $60, it’s still $40 under the maximum of 100. The only time you worry about it is if you see something worth $90, but the store is asking $110. Right now, for the Oilers, Ryan Smyth is worth $40, but they are okay paying $60 because they weren’t planning to use that extra $20 on anyone else anyway, and certainly not the other $40 on top of that. To a cup contender, it’s the second example. Awful example but hopefully this allows you to finally understand what I’m talking about.

  33. Did I miss something……….

    Is Moreau a King or isn’t he?

  34. On a bit of a tangent, how do you guys view Moreau in relation to Westgarth? If you were only playing one of them, which one would it be? I know a lot of people seem to be praising Westgarth for his play in the playoffs last season and speculating that he will carry that into this season, but i’m not sold. To me though, the more important issue seems to be Westgarth’s lack of physicality. He already seems to be a step or two behind the play, but he never through his weight around. He doesn’t punish players with hits. So what i’m left with, is the feeling that we have a slow guy, following the play, making zero presence on the ice, staging the occasional fight and giving one of our lines the occasional breather.

    So, with that said, does Moreau just flat out replace Westgarth for most of the season? And is that an upgrade at the 4th line, defensively responsible, enforcer type position? I doubt we ever see Moreau standing toe to toe with the real heavy weights, but in every other situation, he seems like a cheap upgrade (not that Westgarth is expensive) to what Westgarth brings to the bench.

    Is there a scenario in which this signing makes good sense to the nay sayers out there?

  35. One tiny post…I like the move!

    • This lacks the 2,500 word minimum now required for this thread. Please edit.

      • Once upon a time, long time ago before there were zamboni’s and ice was made out in the cold weather during the winter season……I like the move!

        There are 2,500 words here but I have the hide text feature set to high.

  36. Holy shit, 72+ responses (including several essays on the subject) about Ethan “WTF” Moreau?

    Damn…anyone mention boobs yet?

    He’s a 12th/13th forward insurance policy in case no kid steps up like Clifford did last year. You would think that Murray has him penciled in as the #1LW by these responses.

    Did Doughty sign yet?

  37. Smallest spend possible; maximum word count. What an imbalance.

    Must be that low point when we’re all just too far removed from the Cup Finals and training camp is too far in the future. “Dog days of August” indeed.

  38. What is the record for most comments on a S&S article?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,097 other followers

%d bloggers like this: