Oops.

I like your take on variety, still worry on vulnerability defensively if caught in bad matchup. If it were just described as keeping Richards and Kopi lines intact, but also having a light-it-up line offensively added to the other two lines, that would indeed be scary. For me the personnel you mentioned might have colored the actual concept.

Not to harp, but the scoring problem went away convincingly enough for me after March 1, and was “blossoming” previous to that somewhat in February, to the degree I don’t worry about scoring as being a central problem anymore. Gonna think more about it, fun chat.

I didn’t say that Stoll was THE reason for anything. It’s not his fault. He’s a perfectly fine bottom six forward and face-off guy. it’s not his fault he’s overpaid, nor that he’s often asked to do things he’s not really qualified to do. My main problem with Stoll is two-fold:

(1) He’s not as good offensively as, say, Loktionov, and he’s not as good defensively as, say, Handzus. He’s betwixt and between. He’ll do in a pinch. But he’s a compromise. An expensive one.

(2) I believe that the main reason the Kings struggled to score under Terry Murray is that the forward lines were usually three versions of the same line, playing the same way (and a fourth line that barely played), rather than building a roster that employs different lines for dramatically different purposes. On the Kings, because of the way Richards and Kopitar play, there really is no reason to have a third line that is defensive in nature (since the top two lines have that job), or is even a hybrid (like the top two lines). In fact, if you try to do that, you can hardly avoid making a line that is just a lesser version of those other two lines.

Also, you can hope that you get the line matchups you want, rendering King/Stoll/Lewis not against certain lines, etc., but of course there will be times when the matchup does not go your way.

The Kings problem WAS defense, not scoring. The “lack of scoring” meme was not true at the end of the year and thru the playoffs. By a quick count, from March 1 to the end of the regular season the Kings cored 54 goals in 18 games, an even 3 per game on average. That would put them 4th in the league, if done for the full season. In the playoffs the Kings scored at 2.85 per game while maintaining the lowest Goals against at 1.5. The nearest was Ottawa at 2.0, by the way, a stellar performance of defensive hockey, which paired with the 2.85 in goals-for shows you can play defense first and still score, too.

At least we agree on Gagne.

King/Stoll/Lewis would not be played against anybody’s top lines. That responsibility belongs to Kopitar’s and Richard’s lines. The reason Loktionov has not been effective so far is that he hasn’t regularly skated with anyone who can finish.

The Kings’ problem is not defense. It’s scoring. A full season of Stoll in 2011-12 and the Kings came within a game or two of missing the playoffs entirely.

Loktionov is not an answer, and if he is, it’s the wrong question. The guy does not yet fit the system, and saying “yet” is being generous, I fear. He is close to being a one-trick pony, and that trick is thwarted regularly. He simply does not excel defensively especially in the tough areas/corners, has limited versatility, and his offensive production is a disappointment.

Lokti had tons of time during the regular season, including power play time and good linemates, with disappointing results. He’s young, too, and while that may be a positive regarding eventual up-side, he plays young. My point crystallizes when I see you compare a line involving Lokti to a line involving Mullen, as I remember Mullen’s impotence against a certain guy named John LeClaire in overtime.

Gagne plays carefully, almost as if he has had serious head injuries and is trying to be protective of himself. I respect him, he works hard, he is a viable threat and capable defensively, but he does not the exhibit the “wild abandonment” of play like Richards, Greene, Brown, even Kopi. Toffoli is completely unproven. Lokti can’t finish at the NHL level for whatever reason, does not make his teammates better at the NHL level for whatever reason, and is easily and regularly knocked off the puck at both ends of the rink. This line would indeed destroy people; sadly, that would be his teammates.

Stoll/Lewis/King are exactly what is needed; a 40-60 line of offense/defense. The ability to disrupt and deflate the opponent’s top lines, while wielding a very potent threat offensively, is an indispensable component. As well, there is very little room for experimentation in the shortened schedule, plus one of the greatest advantages the Kings have over other teams is that everyone is familiar, no new wrinkles to work out, no new chemistry to be established.

Mixing guys in is one thing, injury and prevention of same will warrant roster moves “involuntarily” as the season progresses. To voluntarily re-design 2 complete lines injecting one guy that has not worked out, another that needs to be considered at least somewhat fragile and a risk when considering a playoff grind, and a totally un-established rookie in place of a Cup-winning mix is a risk that is for me totally un-warranted.

You may sense I feel strongly about it, not sure if that came thru here. Nyuk nyuk.