Let's Do It!!!
by Daniel AC on Nov 8, 2011 2:20 PM PST
Email
PrintDANIEL:
So, I was chilling, being me, reading stories on yahoo sports about hockey. When I saw this interesting nugget about Dustin Penner. All I'm saying is that if the Kings are unhappy with him, and he's really not producing, I don't see why we shouldn't make a trade. Jason Blake for Penner, straight up, after Blake is healthy of course. The Kings lose a guy who they see as a potential problem in the effort column for a guy who always tries hard. The Ducks get an old flame back who might be able to light a fire under his old linemates. It's a radical thought, but just a thought really.
This article is user-generated. It does not necessarily reflect the views of Anaheim Calling. Please do not link this article as representative of Anaheim Calling content or viewpoints . . . unless it's really really good.
52 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I’m pretty sure we’d be talking on money. I haven’t cycled the contracts yet.
by Daniel AC on Nov 8, 2011 3:04 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
It’s only a million. Samueli has that in his ashtray. I think it’s a smart idea for two teams looking to shake things up. We’d have PPG back together. We could put Bobby on the second line or anchoring the third, and we can ship off a forward prospect for a defensive forward to round out the 4th line.
by Daniel AC on Nov 8, 2011 4:04 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I’m not sure that Samueli ever dumps his ashtray.
It’s worth a shot though. It’s a Murray type of trade – he gets to pick up someone noboby else wants. And, we could shed someone nobody else wants. Win-Win situation. So what do we do until Blake gets healthy?
by JLL on Nov 8, 2011 8:50 PM PST up reply actions
Replace Murray with Lombardi and I’m in agreement.
by pearljamfan80 on Nov 8, 2011 6:21 PM PST up reply actions
I meant Lombardi wouldn’t want to do the deal. I could see him trading Penner in the near future if he continues his morbid production but no way does he trade him to Anaheim.
by pearljamfan80 on Nov 8, 2011 9:46 PM PST up reply actions
It's a nice idea.
But if Carlyle can’t light a fire under some of Getzlaf, chances are he has no chance at lighting a fire under Penner.
Again though, Penner was one of my favourite players when he played here and I would be all for it (even though I respect Jason Blake’s game).
"That might've been a little push, but that was a major flop. That would make Vlade Divac very proud." - Jerry Reynolds
Ah, true.
From what I recall, Getzlaf actually liked Penner as a friend, so seeing those two rejuvenated from this type of trade isn’t too farfetched.
I question what the Kings motive to make this trade would be though.
"That might've been a little push, but that was a major flop. That would make Vlade Divac very proud." - Jerry Reynolds
They don’t like Penner. I think they just want to get rid of him.
More importantly, Penner will do what Bobby Ryan never does, go to the net.
The Penner hard-on
has always fascinated me. In his best season with Anaheim, he only managed 45 points. Put another way, in 101 games with the Ducks he racked up 52 points.
in Bobby’s first 101 games, he had 76 points.
I know I missed the Penner era, but isn’t production ultimately the most important factor here? I guess you can try to argue TOI and the maturation of Perry and Getz, but that hardly seems to make up the 24 point difference between he and Bobby.
by PhantomPretender on Nov 8, 2011 8:58 PM PST up reply actions
This isn't specifically aimed at you, by the way
It’s just a general observation.
by PhantomPretender on Nov 8, 2011 9:03 PM PST up reply actions
Chemistry
No Robby, I think the issue is chemistry. Chemistry ALWAYS comes before production, and this sounds like an inexpensive, doable way to try to generate some where none exists. I know I’ve advocated a major overhaul of the team, and I still think it will come to that. But folks are trying to find ways to light the fires and burn the tires without that overhaul. I’m willing to try just about anything. The only issue I see with this deal is that come January, when Blake is healthy, we may be in too deep a hole to dig out of. But there’s always next year . . .
by JLL on Nov 8, 2011 9:06 PM PST up reply actions
Oh I'm fine with doing Blake for Penner
I’ve just always found it fascinating that some people speak so wistfully about Penner vs. Ryan. Today was the first time I took a real hard look at their stats and I was surprised it wasn’t closer. There used to be a sentiment that the first line was better off with Penner than it has been with Bobby. That’s died down considerably over the past year or so, but it is surprising to me that some people have always held Penner in such high esteem.
by PhantomPretender on Nov 8, 2011 9:12 PM PST up reply actions
I’m sorry Robby, but as much as people my like Penner, it’s nothing compared to your blind love of Bobby Ryan.
JLL is right by the way. Chemistry is the key factor. I like that you dismiss the really compelling factors such as the youth of everyone on that line, and the fact that they weren’t getting as much time on the ice. I can’t see how those would be factors at all. That’s sarcasm.
As per usual, numbers don’t tell the whole story. Penner did what Bobby doesn’t do. He goes to the front of the net. He used to set up camp right in front of the crease, and he has a great set of hands, maybe better than Bobby. He fits with the way we play hockey, because we don’t play a speed game. Penner really knew how to cycle the puck. Production aside, watching that line operate was a thing of beauty. They were systematic and ruthless, just wearing guys down.
One question, Daniel . . .
One of the things that just about everyone on this blog wants to see eradicated is the (perceived) sense of complacency among our “big three.” Does bringing back the old-boy network fix that or contribute to it? An example that comes to mind is Thomas Kaberle, who went off to play with an old buddy this year, and is doing less than he did for Boston last year. I don’t argue with you about the way they played dueing the Cup year, and that style does seem to fit Carlyle. But mindsets change over the years. Thoughts?
by JLL on Nov 8, 2011 9:35 PM PST up reply actions
You can’t really know until you try. The theory is that having an old friend around might get them back to the old spirit of the line. Penner doesn’t have a problem getting to the front of the net. Perry will go there, but Penner is so much more effective. He’d go a long way in making sure the puck doesn’t stay in the boards, but that it can get to the crease.
Mindsets do change, but I think Penner is also coming up on a contract year and being in a system that benefits him will benefit him next year too. I mostly think he’s just such a better fit than Bobby that rewards far outweigh the risks.
I have to agree that Penner is a better fit with the twins than Bobby. I never felt that he had any chemistry with Getzlaf, and I remember clamoring all last year to let him skate with Selanne. He got the chance this year, and nothing much happened with it; Cogs looks better with them than Bobby did.
I do believe that Bobby’s on the wrong team. I love him almost as much as Robby, but I perceive that he’s caged and stifled here. I don’t know if it’s just his stubbornness or if RC’s system just can’t take advantage of his skill set. I believe that Bobby has tried to do what RC has asked of him, but it’s largely anathema to the style he’s developed.
To the extent that getting Penner would be a step toward getting the players that RC needs to make his system work (and it seems it could be), the next step woulkd be to trade Bobby for a solid, stay-at-home D-man and a defensively responsible forward. We have to bring defensive responsibility back into the forward ranks, and I don’t recall the PPG guys being very good at that. That’s why we had the shutdown line. We could look at free agency next summer to rebuild the scoring line, while training some of our youngsters to be shutdown artists, perhaps.
I don't pretend that I'm not a Bobby partisan
And I’m pretty sure I acknowledged the youth and ice time factors. I just said that it’s not enough to account for the difference in production all by itself.
As for process over results, I guess that’s up to you. I could give a damn about how well someone is cycling and wearing down opposition if they’re not scoring points. Look at the top line this year. They’re cycling just fine, they’re just not getting shots.
As for stats not telling the whole story, I agree. But they are a pretty good indicator of what is and isn’t. I’m sure that Penner was a useful player. Edmonton obviously threw down for him for a reason. But his best season is only better than Bobby’s first two, when he played less than a full year.
Again, I’m a Bobby homer. Obviously. But he has better career numbers than Penner, and it’s really not even that close. Penner has a career average of 0.562 points per game and 2.06 points per 60 minutes. Bobby has a career average of 0.788 points per game and 2.67 points per 60 minutes.
by PhantomPretender on Nov 8, 2011 9:36 PM PST up reply actions
You don’t give any reason why those factors shouldn’t count for the difference in production. I’ll always contend that playing with more experienced players increases the chances of increased production. One need look no farther than the story of Cheechoo.
I think it’s a little ridiculous to think a team will always get results. I tell all my students that there will be times when the talent, drive etc. isn’t there. When that happens, all you have is the process. Focusing on results ultimately leads to a lack of results.
Actually, stats aren’t a pretty poor indicator of what’s happening. Penner started his career with a pair of fellow rookies getting what amounted to something in the middle of 2nd-3rd line minutes. After that, he got offered the kind of money he’d probably never see again in his career and went to what was arguably one of the worst teams in the league while he was there. Meanwhile, Bobby got to play with a couple of burgeoning superstars and got close to top line minutes. They are two extraordinarily different circumstances. Stats require context like any other form of evidence. Without context they tell you almost nothing. Claims and warrants are important.
penner still does what bobby doesnt. he eats to much and does too little.
Were we not discussing elsewhere that we needed players with work ethic, that hustled every minute of every night? how does penner fit this mould?
by BennyLightning on Nov 9, 2011 3:20 AM PST up reply actions
You can be as cute about it as you want, but Bobby only goes to the net after the puck gets there, not before. Or if he does, he does so with such irregularity that it’s negligible.
As for hussle, you never know what can happen when a guy gets back to a place where be can be effective. Penner needs a system like ours that doesn’t emphasize transition offense. The puck possession Carlyle emphasizes fits Penner’s game. At this point the chance of him returning and sparking the twins is more important than his work ethic. You can’t everything you want.
by Daniel AC on Nov 9, 2011 7:24 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
perhaps, but that at present isnt bobbys game. would he be better if he did. most likely. However, the real argument is does penner bring more to the table than blake. im not sure that he does. in fact i really think he doesnt. theyre both over priced no doubt, but one actually works hard, and that in my eyes gives him the edge.
by BennyLightning on Nov 9, 2011 7:26 PM PST up reply actions
Penner brings a lot more than Blake, like the ability to camp in front of the net and not the put the puck into the logo. Work ethic is overrated. A guy who digs a hole for 6 hours works hard, but it doesn’t mean he does anything.
well for 6 hours work he should have a decent sized hole.
Im sorry i just really dont see what penner brings to hockey, considering his current level of play. To say he will be better because he played ok here once before isnt really a convincing argument. His previous seasons at a edmonton and now LA are more likely a stronger predictor of his play than anything else. Had he played in a similar system to ours over these years id tend to be more inclined to say that he might change his production, but based on recent games i cant see it.
Personally i think we need to persevere with the current roster. changes can be made closer to the deadline, depending on ladder position
by BennyLightning on Nov 9, 2011 10:57 PM PST up reply actions
I'd hardly consider work ethic overrated.
Nashville is a very hard working team, have none of the star offensive power as we do. Granted they have huge defensive power. But their MO is hard work. Our record against Nashville in last 12 games? 3-9 or something like that. My dad said something to me the earlier; “Work beats skill when skill doesn’t work.” That being said I don’t see Penner making us any worse then we already are.
Nashville is also committed to their system; they’re religious about it. Anyone can win when the other team doesn’t play well.
Yes, work ethic can be over rated. Wisniewski was a hard working player, but that doesn’t mean he was food here. Working hard is not the same thing as getting work done. As fans,We like the way it looks, but it shouldn’t always be the determining factor in evaluating a player.
by Daniel AC on Nov 9, 2011 11:44 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I agree that work ethic isnt everything in eveluating a player. Theres a quote, i forget where it comes from….
“When building a team, I always search first for people who love to win. If I can’t find any of those, I look for people who hate to lose.”
I dont see how penner fits in either of these categories.
Moving blake for penner seems to me to be a move only for the sake of making a move. it doesnt really improve the team or gain us an asset in any way. Blake at least could be useful at the deadline to pick up some asset. Or he stays on next year as a 3rd/4th liner for cheap and plays the same game and is a valuable lower line player. Furthermore i can only see penner as a rental for the year, as i really think we need to trust in our development system, as an etem may be ready to go next year.
by BennyLightning on Nov 10, 2011 12:55 AM PST up reply actions
I don’t think anyone makes a team where every player fits the criteria you just identified. Some players just need to do their jobs.
Etem can play on the second line with DSP and Holland or whoever and Penner can play on the top line. I don’t really care about Bobby. Hopefully we trade him. See, Penner can be more than a rental.
It’s nice that Blake plays hard, but it’s done. He just doesn’t have it. Penner can be effective in the puck possession game Carlyle likes to play.
by Daniel AC on Nov 10, 2011 8:25 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
It’s really hard to compare players based on 2 very different situations. Penners production was on par with Getzlaf and Perry in 06-07. Ryan didn’t break out with the Ducks till 2 years later in 08-09. By that time both Getzlaf and Perry are established and more fully developed. It’s not far fetched to think that if Penner had stayed with Anaheim that he would have developed along with them. Penner did get 30 goals in one of those seasons with Edmonton so it is not like he cant produce. Even at 45 points he would still be giving better production then Blake, and we can pretty much assume that Ryan would do 60+ with Selanne and Koivu unless they ship him out.
The Kings' motive
would be getting something useful. Penner has been beyond terrible for LA. Like even less productive than Jason Blake.
In 31 games with the Kings, Penner has 2 goals and 5 assists for 7 (!!!) points. That equates to 0.225 points per game. In 105 games with the Ducks, Blake has 22 goals and 25 assists for a combined 47 points. That equates to 0.448 points per game.
All that said, it’s a win-win for both clubs. However, the injury to Blake likely nixes any possibility of a straight-up deal.
by PhantomPretender on Nov 8, 2011 8:53 PM PST up reply actions
Comparing production with Getzlaf/Perry of 06-07 to Getzlaf/Perry now is difficult. Back then Getz/Perry were young up and coming kids who were just getting their feet wet. Now Getzlaf is one of the best C’s in the league and was Canada’s #2 C at the Olympics and Perry just won an MVP. Apples and oranges comparison.
The reason I'm not a huge fan of Penner...
Is his mental make-up. This is a guy who was ‘discovered’ by Brian Burke and David McNab when he was playing in hockey obscurity when he was 21-22 years old. Prior to his endeavors at the that small community college in Northern Dakota, he lacked the drive and passion to play hockey at a greater level. He didn’t pursue anything beyond high school hockey until he really noticed that he had the skill set to put in the time and effort to make it to the NHL. Before he knew it, he was playing really well at Maine and in Cincinnati. This would be the type of Penner I would like to see in Anaheim colours if ever there were to be a trade.
On the other hand, as most of us know, he was a very good rookie when playing on the PPG, but it seemed that when he had no reason to succeed in Edmonton, he didn’t try to succeed at all. He stopped keeping up his shape, and it seemed like he had no desire to give his 100% every night. He started to get back into the game in his latter Edmonton years (while still being affectionately known as “Dustin Penne”), but that was after his rift with Craig MacTavish. If you ask most Oilers fans what they think of him, they would likely say “lazy”.
Now that he is in LA, in a very good situation, playing on a wing with Mike Richards and Dustin Brown, he’s not still producing. He doesn’t seem to skate hard or do any of those intangible things like we used to see out of the old D-Penn. And I find this to be a trend, and a bad one at that. This version of Penner is one I wouldn’t want to see in Anaheim.
So in the end, I would rather have a player who brings it all every night, regardless of the team and situation he is in (Jason Blake), then a guy who to me has seemed to have lost the mental ability to succeed in the NHL. Maybe I’m overanalyzing, and maybe he would come here and become that guy again, but I really just don’t see it.
Rant over
"That might've been a little push, but that was a major flop. That would make Vlade Divac very proud." - Jerry Reynolds
I’m not so sure that I understand what you’re trying to say….
"That might've been a little push, but that was a major flop. That would make Vlade Divac very proud." - Jerry Reynolds
Observations on things like work ethic are tough to apply because it’s really a matter of perspective. A lot of things have happened since Penner was here. He was good here and potentially can be again. Players go through tough stretches and turn there respective games around. I was just pointing out that you’ve pretty much sold yourself on one view point and that no argument would convince you were wrong.
by Daniel AC on Nov 9, 2011 7:19 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
He scored two goals for the Kings last year and he has more points than Cogs dies right now.
You can’t tell me you really think Blake’s production on our second line would march Penner playing in the top line?
by Daniel AC on Nov 9, 2011 11:43 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
I’m glad you guys got a healthy debate going but there’s absolutely no way the Kings would ever do this.
Just because you have a practical GM, doesn’t mean the rest of us can’t dream.
by Daniel AC on Nov 9, 2011 1:31 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Anaheim Calling
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
CK Photo Galleries
