DOH 200 – The Big One
June 15th, 2012, 6:51 am
It’s a milestone episode, and the Dudes have to face the fact that the Kings are the Stanley Cup Champions, and the long term de facto Pacific division favorite. But in Sharks news, Brad Stuart is back, and the Dudes figure out what that means for the rest of the defensive corps. Finally, Mike and Doug cover the entire Sharks lineup, particularly the RFAs and UFAs, predicting which will be retained, and which will be free to test the market.
Correction: Brad Stuart was a #3 overall pick, not #6 as we said in the podcast. (Matt D’Agostini)
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
Tags: Los Angeles Kings, San Jose Sharks
Loading ...
Congrats on 200. Enjoyed it very much.
Kings will be a force for awhile, DW has his work cut out for him!
Speaking of DW, & his copycat philosophy, expect to see “Pancake Penner” to be wearing teal this year. as I do a face-palm
I give Douglas Murray zero chance of staying with sharks. If DW can get, say a second round pick or a decent top-nine forward for him, I will be doing cartwheels. I would still miss Murray, he’s been a warrior.
Saw a post season interview with Clowe, he basically said that he “couldn’t find it” this past year. WTF. Hey I love Clowe but that was a lame excuse
I also do not want Handzus back this year, I’m willing to cut him some slack for this past season though, he lost his best friend (Demitra) and many other peaple close to him in the Locamotive Plane crash. I lost a brother in a trajic accident and it took a long time to come to grips with what happened. I’m not making excuses for MH but something to think about
Thanks for the shows guys, always look forward to some Sharks & Hockey talk.
Sorry to hear about your brother, and that’s a good point about Handzus. I’m hoping you’rr right, because if he’s as putrid this coming year as he was last year, it’ll be a real anchor on the Sharks.
And I’ll follow your lead- there’s a zero percent chance Penner is on the Sharks next year.
Thanks for listening.
Thanks Mike.
Handzus’s season was a waste of 2.5 mil, better spent elsewere. Hell he could have resigned Wellwood & still had some caash left over. Hindsight is 20-20. I’m sure DW would do things differently, if he could.
Also if DW could get a prospect or two for Murray, (help restock the cupboards) that would make me happy-happy.
I realize this isn’t going to be a popular opinion but, I don’t think there is any reason to fear the Kings next year. This is still the same team that dropped the last two games of the year to the Sharks and I really don’t feel like they’ve “passed us”. I don’t see the Sharks being any less confident playing against them or competing for the division against them either.
I have to give credit to LA, of course, but I haven’t felt this unintimidated about a cup winner since Carolina in 06′. They were an 8th seed that got hot at the right time and put it all together. I feel completely different about the Kings than I did about Pittsburgh, Detroit, Chicago, and Boston after they won.
Let’s not forget this team was one or two losses away from not making the playoffs. I can’t say they’re better than SJ until I see them matched up on the ice. Based on what I saw last year, SJ had LA beat when it counted.
It’s a fair point, and I would expand on it by saying that even if you’re wrong about the Kings not having passed the Sharks in terms of talent and being the better team on paper, your point alludes to something else which is that the Sharks have seemed to have the Kings number anyway. So there’s a point to be at least considered that maybe the Kings are better on paper, and they will continue to perform better against the Blues and Canucks than the Sharks will, but the Sharks will still give them a hard time head to head.
I think that’s a point worth considering, but if you also believe the Sharks are still ahead of the Kings on paper, I would have to disagree there.
A couple things. I don’t know if you remember but the last two games of the season, the Kings did not have Jeff Carter in the lineup, and if we know anything about the Kings, it’s that they are a completely different team with Carter in there. Whatever you think of Carter as an individual player, the fact is that with him in their lineup, it has a trickle effect through the whole team, and lets everyone play in their perfect slot, and it’s night and day difference.
Here’s the other thing. The only evidence your opinion has to go on is those two games at the end of the season. Yes, they were important games, and relevant. But they were two games. Every other piece of evidence we have, like the Kings winning the Cup, the Kings sweeping the Blues after they beat us in five, the Kings beating the team that eliminated us last postseason in five games, in five games, tells us that the Kings are better than the Sharks.
I mean we have a whole Stanley Cup run of evidence that says the Kings have passed the Sharks, series and series of evidence against teams like the Blues that are definitely relevant, and you’re choosing to go with the two games of evidence that say the Sharks are better instead. Would you really make that same decision if you weren’t a Sharks fan? The only reason to go with that evidence over the whole postseason is that those 2 games were head to head, which I agree is a good reason, but again, it’s two games, and they didn’t have Carter.
Lastly, and I think this is the most damning part to us wanting to believe the Sharks are still better. The Kings did better in the postseason than the Sharks, durrr, they won the Cup, swept the team that eliminated the Sharks. No one argues they were better in the playoffs, and the only reason you’re arguing the Sharks are still better than the Kings is because the Sharks were better than the Kings when they played the last 2 games of the season.
Except, they werent!
That’s the biggest thing. The Sharks won the games, yes, but they weren’t the better team. I don’t remember how the scores went in those 2 games exactly, but I remember approximately. Both games, the Kings came out and dominated the Sharks for the first half or more of the game, the Sharks, similar to what we saw in the postseason when teams played the Kings, could not create much against their stifling defense, and the Kings controlled the game and built the lead.
And then in both games, in the 3rd period, the Kings shit their pants, got away from their game, and collapsed, losing the lead and the game, although one of them might have been in the shootout. So even without Jeff Carter, the Kings, when all was neutral, were the better team.
Were the Sharks in their heads at the end of the day? Yes, and the Kings choked the games away in the end because of it. But that’s all it was, and can you really rely on a mental advantage of some sort to carry you through against them, and allow you to come back against them in the 3rd period every game? Well, you could last year, but do you really expect that to carry over to next year? The Kings just won the Cup, I’m not sure the Sharks can rely anymore on them being scared.
And without that mental edge, what do the Sharks have against them? They outplayed the Sharks those last two games even without Carter, and they’re about twice as good with him. Then there’s Dwight King and Jordan Nolan, two huge reasons they won the Cup, just coming into their own. They have a fast, skilled 20 goal scorer in Simon Gagne who they’re basically adding next season like a free agent because they didn’t have him most of the run. Of course they’re losing some guys like Penner too probably.
I just think every piece of evidence we have tells us the Kings are clearly better than the Sharks. The two games you pointed to that are supposed to say different, when you really look back at what happened in those games and not just the scores, actually don’t say that either. All the evidence says they’re better except for the Sharks possibly having a mental edge, and while I do think that’s significant, I don’t think it’s enough to say the Sharks are still better. I think you call the situation what it is, the Kings are the better team, and the Sharks may have a mental edge against that better team, but they’re still a better team.
You compared to the Kings to Carolina, well for one Carolina was a pretty good team and would have continued to be if they didn’t lose a lot of their depth, and second, I don’t remember who they beat to win the Cup, but I doubt they had to go through the top seeds in their conference like the Kings.
That’s my problem with your comparison there. You’re saying the Kings are a low seed, struggled all year, and even though they won the Cup, they’re not as good as people think. Except, they tied Detroit for the best record in the playoffs in however many years, they stormed through the best teams in the Conference. That’s where I smell some bias in your comment, because this team just won the championship, swept the team that beat us in five games, also beat the #1 seed the Canucks that gave us problems all year in five games, and what’s your response? We’re still better. It does seem like instead of weighing all the evidence evenly and coming to an objective conclusion, you’re looking for any excuse you can find to try to convince yourself we’re still better.
EvilDoug, I’m watching you. From now on you need to post as GfaninSF, or you’re back on the blocked list.
???
Are you saying you banned someone because they used “Doug” in their handle?
What do you think of what I wrote Mike? Do you think the Sharks two winning results against the Kings at the end of the regular season are more indicative of where we stack up with the Kings, or do you think the Kings Cup run is what we should go off of?
Don’t insult my intelligence. I have full adminstration rights to the logs on this site, this isn’t a friggin blogger account. You have one more shot to contribute something useful, and not waste my time.
???
I posted a long comment earlier today about the Sharks, the Kings, the NHL, where the Sharks are in relationship to the Kings, mental edges, asking what we should think about the Sharks and Kings. If youre saying my comment was not of sufficient quality for your sup-blogger blog, I would suggest you may be, consciously or not, evaluating the quality of my comments more harshly than you do the comments of others here, much like Tom appears to have evaluated the Sharks with a slight bias, albeit in their favor.
Honestly Mike, I would like to discuss hockey here, thats why I took the time to write my useless, unworthy comment earlier on the Sharks and Kings. Im interested in your opinion on SharksKings as well, but you ignored what I wrote and now youre threatening to ban me instead of just talking hockey. I think if I was afforded the same respectful treatment as everyone else here, you might just find respectful conduct in return.
There are plenty of places online to troll and cause waves with a lot more posters if that was my intention, but it’s not. I’d like to talk hockey here, but again, if you don’t think I’m qualified, I guess I just have to hope there are some blogger Sharks sites where my incompetence will be more accepted.
What he wrote as a replay to your post was the opposite of a threat to ban you.
You were banned before, so all he said was that he would give you another chanse. I think you should be happy about that and behave instead of complaining about it.
He just asked one thing from you to not keep you on the banlist, and that was to keep your nickname (as all others on this page do) instead of changing your nickname all the time. So.. From now on he wanted you to use the nickname you used now. How could that be unclear?
If anybody wanted to discuss hockey with you, they’d read your blog… I know a lot of hockey writers twittered it’s existence when it was launched… and now basically nobody reads it.
So, you’re back to other blogs where people actually want to read the content annoying their readers.
Evil Ducks, I honestly dont know what you’re talking about. I dont have a blog. Wish I did, its a good idea if I had more time.
Truthfully, If I was just wanting for a place to talk Sharks hockey with other people, there are plenty of other places to go, with more people and better potential for real discussion. Forums, for one. Or what about Pollak’s blog? It’s not a forum but I think a lot more people comment there than here, and I don’t think he bans people either.
So the motivations you have attributed my commenting here dont add up at all. Would you like me tell you why I commented, then?
Really, its no conspiracy. I was reading the comments, saw a topic being discussed that I thought I could lend my thoughts to, and I did. It’s the same thing you tried to do with your comment, except mine was about the Sharks and yours was about me, and mine was thought through and made sense and yours didn’t because it apparently wasn’t. (:
I just hope you can see the irony in the fact that I posted a thoughtful comment about hockey on this hockey blog and all you can talk about is me. Maybe youre the one who should start a blog…about me! Your comment makes you seem very concerned with readership, and, well, if theres any way to guarantee readers, that would be it.
Cyoor, thank you for the polite comment explaining what you think Mike meant. Thats not how I personally read his comment but it’s possible I read it wrong, and I appreciate the explanation. It seemed more like he was on a power trip to me with comments like “Im watching you / you have one more shot to contribute something useful (and as judge, jury, and executioner of this blog, like Roger Godell with the NFL, I’ll be the one to decide whats useful and whats not!)”.
And when you say it was the opposite of a threat to ban me, the second sentence he addressed me with ended in a variation of “…or else Im banning you.” Anything that starts with “I’m watching you” and ends with “or else” or “or I’m going to do this” is usually a threat.
But there’s more than one side to every story. Just from my end, personally, all I did was write a comment about hockey, because I wanted to talk about hockey, and since then Ive been told Im being watched, in danger of being banned, told that no one wants to talk to me (or whoever Evil Ducks is mixing me up as), told no one wants to read the blog I dont have and Im only commenting here due to the resulting desperation, and meanwhile, amidst all the vitriol directed at me, not one comment about hockey. Not one. So right now the “troll” in danger of being banned is responsible for the lone on topic comment in this discussion.
Unfortunately, even though thats true, I can see that just my presence here is causing a disturbance with everyone else, so even when Im not doing anything wrong or causing any trouble or talking about anything but hockey myself, my presence is causing some others to immediately make trouble themselves and go off topic as a reaction. In that sense I cant really blame Mike if he bans me because I doubt he wants any disturbance on his blog, and I guess its easier to just ban me than the people who dont like me.
Or if he lets me stay, Im not looking for trouble, and if you keep the comments about hockey and not about me, I wont talk about anything but hockey, either.
So what do you think of Tom’s comment saying he’s not worried about the Kings, the Sharks are still better, comparing them to 06 Hurricanes? Should we be scared of the Kings or not?
Let me spell it out for you: it’s obvious that you’re EvilDoug just by reading your long-winded posts but what Mike’s also implying here is that he can tell from the logs that you’re posting from the same machine or account as EvilDoug. Technology is a beautiful thing.
Not to be “that guy,” but the ‘Canes won their division in ’06. You’re thinking of the Oilers, who were the miracle 8th seed coming out of the West.
No actually I didn’t confuse the two. (I didn’t remember though that Carolina won their division.) I was comparing more the perception of the cup winner after they won. Unlike the last four winners, Carolina wasn’t perceived as “the new big kid on the block”, so to speak. People weren’t intimidated by them after the fact.
I’m not trying to say Carolina or LA weren’t deserving of winning. Any team that survives that marathon deserves to hoist the cup. But, I’m not feeling that LA is even going to be the 3rd or 4th best team in the west. That’s all my point is.
I’m mostly with you, Tom, in that people are overreacting to their playoff run. On the other hand, their regular season record isn’t representative of what I expect from them next year, either.
a) they were a completely different team after their coaching change
b) they didn’t get Jeff Carter until late in the year
c) nearly their whole roster from last year is already under contract, and they still have plenty of cap room to improve it further
The truth is somewhere in between. Almost no chance they steamroll the league next year like they did in this year’s playoffs, but I also expect them to be much better than an 8-seed that barely makes the postseason.
I think you’re right on Patrick… you said it better than I did.
C) from Patricks post is the scary part. Cap room is a beautiful thing. The Kings could acually upgrade there roster this year.
With Stuarts new contract, (with which I have no problem) Murray has to go. The Sharks are not gonna pay him 2.5 for bottom pairing work. Hope its for youth or speed, or both.
Hey the Sharks finaly made a move, I’m getting “Optimistic” again. Could somebody talk me down please!