Andrei Loktionov also leads the Devils in PTS/60 and +-/60. Small sample size, but still.
Evernote lets you save all the interesting things you see online into a single place. Access all those saved pages from your computer, phone or the web. Sign up now or learn more. It's free!
Tags: Andrei Loktionov
This entry was posted on March 1, 2013 at 7:05 AM and is filed under Latest. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
I’m glad to see he is scoring but it doesn’t change the fact that he was never going to crack the Kings’ lineup. He’s having success in part because he’s playing with Kovalchuk. Who on the Kings was he going to play with that is a skilled guy like that? Especially since he’d be at best the 3rd line center in L.A.
It was a choice between Stoll and Loktionov and Lombardi chose Stoll. Since the Kings have trouble scoring goals, my opinion is that decision is likely to look stupid sooner rather than later. But it will almost certainly be a regrettable decision when we look at it a few years from now.
And by the way, Loktionov is not playing protected minutes, and he’s only been on ice for 1 goal against. His defensive numbers are best on the team, during a losing streak no less.
I’m just playing devil’s advocate. I’ve stated time and again that I am a fan of Loktionov – hell, I’m the one who started the online petition to get his name on the Cup – but I can see where Lombardi was coming from in choosing Stoll over Lokti. If Loktionov isn’t playing on one of the top two lines he is probably not going to be particularly effective and he’s never going to center one of the top two lines for the Kings because they already have three of the best centers in the NHL (Kopitar, Richards, Carter). Stoll may not be as talented, but as far as winning face-offs and playing sound defensively, he is probably the better option right now. Plus, the Kings have guys like Vey and Weal in Manchester who can replace the expensive Stoll when he is traded or amnesty-bought out this summer; yeah, they are also probably not quite as good as Lokti, but they’re both still going to be good NHLers.
That all having been said, I wish Lokti was centering the 3rd Kings line or getting another look on the wing with Richards and Carter right now (or even with Kopitar and Brown since Williams can’t buy a goal at the moment). And I think Lombardi is a complete asshole and handled the whole situation poorly with Loktionov just like he has with several other former Kings players over the years.
I hear you. Also:
CUPS: Lombardi, 1 — Me — 0.
That should never stop you from ripping into him!
PS, I really appreciate that you follow up on ex-Kings on your blog. There are a lot of guys they have let go who I still like and wish success. Of course there are plenty I dislike and take pleasure in their failure (I’m looking at you, Mike Cammalleri)!
My feeling is that (1) the success or failure of ex-Kings out there in the world reflects directly on the job Lombardi is doing, and (2) I can’t follow a prospect for several years and then suddenly not care once they’re on another team.
The problem is you have been saying Lokti would be better for the Kings than Stoll for two plus years, and in that time the Kings have won the ultimate hardware!
Honestly, if winning the Stanley Cup isn’t enough for you to acknowledge that the Kings might know better than you what should be done personnel-wise, then I suspect the current fact of icing the same Cup-Winning team with all the major components locked up long-term and still having 7 million in cap-space available won’t convince you either.
Just because Loktionov scores a goal in New Jersey it doesn’t mean you deserve an
“I Told You So.” Or does it? Seems to me these repeated Loktionov posts, which all bleed “I told You So” are misplaced in that the I-Told-You-So rightly became directed to you,
when the Kings won the Cup, and when Stoll was re-signed, and when Lokti was
I remember you telling me how Loktionov was destined to replace Stoll when Stoll’s contract came due. I remember you telling me that Lokti being the 3rd center was “The Plan” as if there were no contingencies, no multiple possible plans, no options, no room for development or lack thereof. That was a good read on what you wanted, but probably at best a good read on one best-case scenario of what the Kings wanted, from among many.
Stoll has a different skill set, a broader skill set, and that skill set fits the
Kings lineup needs, system needs and personnel. Loktionov was never going to be
a third center in the Kings current model without massive physical and intellectual development. He was also never going to replace Kopitar, Richards, or Carter as a top 2 center.
For that matter, Loktionov cannot do what Stoll does now, and Stoll already did what
Loktionov might grow to be able to do, when 2 years ago Stoll was successful as
the Kings second center. I am not saying he lit up the world as a 2nd center, but he was among the top ten league-wide statistically compared to other second centers judged by points, faceoff percentage and plus-minus.
Stoll is what he is, and Stoll does not need to be a grown up Loktionov to provide value to this team. It makes no sense to ignore Stoll’s many other vital abilities. It seems obvious that in reality Stoll v. Loktionov is a false comparison to begin with.
You can hope for the Kings to abandon their winning, as in Stanley-Cup-Winning formula of line types, and hope for a speed line a la Millen/Donnelly et al, but that would mean dumping the Coach that won us the Stanley Cup in favor of a complete philosophical rebuild of team identity. Then, Loktionov MIGHT fit in. But that is not what happened, and that is not what’s going to happen.
You have a bad habit of rounding off what I say so that you can rail against it. I would start by pointing out that the world is full of paradoxes and nuances, and you seem to be missing many of them.
First of all, I have supported nearly every move Lombardi has made in seven years as Kings GM, to the point that people have actually accused me of being a Lombardi plant. I have been defending Lombardi’s decisions in the face of cranks and trolls longer and more consistently than anyone.
You seem to think that disagreeing with Lombardi on one point or another somehow invalidates that or means I am anti-Lombardi in general. It’s not all or nothing.
Second, I completely agree with myself and apparently you that winning the Stanley Cup is a validation of Lombardi’s vision, as well as a specific validation of his unpopular (but entirely supported by me) decision to trade Visnovsky for Stoll and Greene. Even throughout my serial complaints about the treatment of loktionov, I have acknowledged that winning a cup cures a lot of ills — and actually it was just the other day that I noted that Lombardi has one cup whereas I have zero. OH WAIT, IT’S JUST A FEW INCHES DOWN THIS VERY COMMENTS THREAD. So as far as “will I admit” this or that, obviously the answer to your question is yes please try to read thoroughly before you lob accusations at straw men.
Re “icing the whole stanley-cup winning team” — yeah, they did that for the most part, and that is unusual. The reason they were able to do that was because Lombardi is a genius at cap management, as I have been pointing out for years. How exactly is that deserving of some kind of “I told you so” directed at me by you?
My main point about “icing the same team” is that it’s also the same team that came within two wins of missing the playoffs entirely.
It’s thinking like yours that has people accusing me of being anti-Quick because I suggest that Bernier should have played in the playoffs two years ago when they ran Quick into the ground, or when I suggested (this season) that Bernier should get more starts because we don’t know if Quick is even healthy and hasn’t played in seven months (oh and look what happened!). I can be pro-Quick and pro-Bernier at the same time. Just as I can be pro-Loktionov and pro-Lombardi at the same time. Just as I can be pro-Lombardi and anti-Lombardi-re-Loktionov-2013 at the same time. Just as I can be pro-Jarret-Stoll as a fourth-line center of the future while being critical of using him as a second or even third line center in roles for which he is not well-suited. You’re welcome to disagree. That’s fine. I have for years said that when the Kings aren’t scoring it has a lot to do with the fact that Stoll doesn’t “fit” exactly anywhere. That doesn’t mean I hate Stoll. But it does mean that I believed there are better alternatives. But Lombardi loves guys like Stoll, so that’s what he’s going with. I would just point out that Stoll doesn’t get the tough defensive assignments and he also doesn’t score much. And scoring is a problem on this team, as is power-play performance.
I thought re-signing Stoll for three years was a mistake, and said so. So what? Check back in a couple of years and see who was right.
The sentence “Stoll already did what Loktionov might grow to be able to do” is idiotic.
“I told you so” posts seem to bug you a lot. I would just say that (1) this is the nature of blogs, it’s a conversation with a very big canvas, and (2) the people who read this blog come here to read about Kings past present and future. I post about Loktionov because it’s interesting to people who come here. Oh, and it’s interesting to me.
“You can hope for the Kings to abandon their winning…” Why would I hope for that? “…but that would mean dumping the coach who won us the stanley cup…” Why, who says? “…complete philosophical rebuild…” No. No, no, no.
Really, take a deep breath, read more closely, and try not to round off people’s points of view.
“You have a bad habit of rounding off what I say so that you can rail against it.”
It’s a straw man of your own, this sentence, since I am suddenly being convicted of unknown, unspecified previous crimes. You also make a bunch of personal attacks here, dunno why.
Is it not condescending to say the world is full of paradoxes and nuances, yet I seem to be missing many of them? Wow, Yoda, teach me please. Is that what you want to hear?
I could easily have said that you are incapable of appreciating Stoll, that you miss the nuances of his game, that the paradox in his varied skill set confuses you to think that he doesn’t fit anywhere, and that if you could only take a deep breath and look more closely you might be able to see that he actually fits everywhere and is used in many roles, and that a more educated look would be able to recognize the contributions Stoll makes that just don’t get counted for you by the statisticians. Would that be fair? But I wasn’t talking to you that way, and I don’t. You do talk to me that way, here.
There is something called charity of principle: I try to assign that to your argument in this reply to me, but I end up having to filter too much stuff about whether I am worthy or able to decipher your thinking, and very little on the actual subject matter.
I made a comment about your opinion on Loktionov; I think I rounded nothing off. You’ve thought Lombardi was wrong to keep Stoll over Lokti for years, and you still do. Simple. Am I wrong?
You still think that even though Lombardi won the Cup his way, that he is dead wrong about Stoll and also dead wrong to have traded Loktionov, plus you don’t agree with the style of team lacking a “speed line.” That thinking is what my comment was based on. Are you telling me that isn’t what you think?
There are reasons for Lombardi doing it, and I put out what I thought those reasons were. Now, it’s turning into something personal between you and I. Don’t expand the argument to an attack on how you imagine I think; debate my facts and positions.
You also expanded my position unfairly, as if I meant something extreme, or more than I really did. Your whole thing about being a Lombardi fan, etc., is an over-reaction. My comment here is about the personnel decision regarding Loktionov, and so I meant (and cited specifically) that Lombardi has been proven correct regarding Stoll over Loktionov by having won the Cup.
To me, that means Lombardi is more likely to be correct in re-signing Stoll and trading Loktionov. That’s all. I was not saying that you disagree with everything Lombardi did; perhaps here you are the one missing the nuance, or perhaps I was unclear. Probably the latter, but then we are back to the missing charity of principle, in reverse.
Are you really saying that these Loktionov posts, the coverage of his goals and progress in New Jersey, are not in any way an I told You So? Does Lombardi actually NOT know what he is doing with regard to Loktionov and Stoll? By what measure? The future?
We are already at the future compared to when you first began making this same argument; all objective indications only lead to one conclusion, right? Lokti was not what you wanted him to be, he did not get where you wanted him to get, and despite all that the Kings won the Cup. We didn’t need Lokti then, we don’t need him now.
Of course, it’s easy to say that I didn’t fully read what you wrote properly, or that I just don’t get it, or that I should take a deep breath; these are all demeaning to me, and elevate you. They also expand the argument to whether I can fully understand what you write. How can I debate that with you? It’s not a factual statement, it’s a personal attack.
But really, trying to stay on the original subject, what was my point in the comment? You thought having Stoll was a mistake. Lombardi did not. You thought we would need Loktionov. We did not. Then, we won the Cup. I agreed with Lombardi. Lombardi did what I hoped he would do. You said it would turn out bad, it turned out good. Really good. That is not rounding off your opinion unfairly, that is accurately describing the gist.
You cite that the Kings were only two wins away from not making the playoffs. I am reminded of your thinking regarding the playoff threshold, and the many simulations. In the singular variation that actually occurred with the Kings winning the Cup, it is pointless to discuss how close they were to not making the playoffs, because in the real world of what did happen, barely making the playoffs was part of that reality. We can’t pick and choose which part of a variation we want to keep and which we want to discard. In the variation that won us the Cup we keep all parts of it, and all parts of it were good because they led to the favored outcome.
Look man, I don’t want an adversarial thing with you. I don’t have a problem with “I told you so” posts, I’m just confused about what could possibly justify it from you regarding Loktionov. I was echoing other’s thoughts and your own self-effacing view, too.
Your coverage of Loktionov is clearly more than a simple tracking of a former Kings player’s progress. It just made no sense to me that you would continue to second-guess on this subject. Of course you are free to do so; I though I was free to dissent without being ridiculed regarding comprehension skills.
I stand by what I wrote on all these topics. I categorically deny any interpretation by you of anything I have said, or will say in the future, since pretty much every time you characterize my opinions, my reaction is “but that’s not what I said” or “that’s not what I think.”
You may be a fucking genius for all I know. It’s hard to tell. My honest opinion is you get all wound up and then get things wrong.
I don’t feel like retyping every opinion you disagree with going back a half a decade in order to repeat something I said as well as I could the first time.