I think that is totally fair, adopting a team that moves into your home city just makes sense. I'm sure there are quite a lot of former Kings fans that cheer for VGK now as well, with frozen fury being a thing for so long.
Trevor Moore is a 24-year old undrafted forward. This guy is an AHL'er. A third round pick, maybe third round pick, and an AHL'er is the best Blake could do for Clifford AND Campbell. Not a very good trade for the Kings. Would have rather kept a character player like Clifford, and just trade Campbell to make room for Petersen.
Well, that's a little better.The conditional 3rd is guaranteed, it becomes a 2nd if Campbell wins six games or Clifford is re-signed by the Leafs.
They dealt a UFA grinder and a backup goalie. Remember what the Kings got when they dealt a young Sean Avery? A bunch of junk.
I think Clifford will be back with the Kings on July 1.
To be fair, it's a third in 2020 and either a second or third in 2021, depending on whether 1. Clifford re-signs, or 2. Campbell wins at least 6 regular season games.
Exactly, it’s a good haul being 2- 3rds... a potential 2nd makes it sweeterHe's around 11th among Kings forward in average ice time. The only forwards who averaged less ice time were Matt Luff and Jaret-Anderson Dolan. Clifford was great in his role, but getting a 3rd and/or a potential 2nd or additional 3rd is a pretty good haul.
Look at what Nate Thompson was dealt for. That's about what the going rate normally is for a bottom line forward.
I'm sorry man but yes, you are being deliberately obtuse to make your point. It is a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem regardless, but the answers to both questions are :yes."
I think the conclusion is fine, but you have to make a lot of oversights for the premises.
Saying Kings haven't drafted and developed a regular top line forward since '05 deliberately overlooks what I posted above about '09 and forward (Does Schenn not count?), in addition to previous years:
08--Drafted Doughty, Teubert (LOL), Voynov in the first 32 picks. I'd say they did great with what they had there.
07--another d-man high in Hickey. Simmonds at 61--should they have developed him better? I'm not so sure. He became a PP monster when he left but he was essentially the same player.
06--Bernier highest pick, Trevor Lewis...not sure they could have done much more with him.
So from '06 on...they either drafted a d-man/goalie with their highest pick, traded the pick or the player, or turned them into a player appropriate to their draft spot. If we're looking at strictly top-line forwards, they haven't had the opportunity imo. That's a lot of d-man and goalie development, appropriate to a team that was very focused on two-way hockey. "What we're doing wrong" is simply not throwing top-echelon picks at forward talent, not giving appropriate credit for UFA signings (the school of thought that discounts Iafallo, Muzzin, Jones because "we didn't draft them," which I think is a little bit dishonest), and not giving guys like Schenn, Toffoli, Pearson appropriate credit for the players they are.
Really the only guy from those draft classes on I look at and wonder what could have been is Moller.
Edit: I think the question will have to be answered with this crop of dudes from the last three years: Turcotte, Vilardi, Kaliyev, Fagemo, Kupari, Thomas, Shafigullin, JAD is a good sample size of diverse top-end talent to see what happens. It's terrifying that it's high-stakes but it's the only way to know.
Kings drafted Schenn, who had a good career. Again, I am saying the amateur scouts are doing a great job.
But would you say the Kings "developed" Schenn? He was traded 2 years after being drafted. Played 9 games in the NHL with LA and 7 games in the AHL with Manchester. Do you really think the development staff can claim credit for how his career has turned out?
I repeat, the top line LW the past few seasons is an UNDRAFTED UFA. Amateur scouts nailed it with Iafallo. But undrafted players typically have a very low chance of having a great career.
So, I am arguing if you have scouts who can find a top line forward without even a 7th round pick, saying the development staff hasn't had much to work with is a flimsy excuse.
If you insist they haven't had much to work with, then I'll just disagree. Frankly, a development team shouldn't "need" a high pick to be successful. That's the Edmonton Oilers excuse, whose only good players are top 3 picks.
Again: look at what Ranford did with Quick (3rd tound), Jones (undrafted), Campbell (1st round, but career was almost over). Scrivens had a good run, too. Bernier had a decent career.
If you want to chance plateauing the upcoming promising players by leaving them in the hands of staff who need a high pick to look good, by all means, keep being patient. Nothing wrong with it. I just think the Kings should expect better and fix things before waiting another few years (because we can't judge the current crop for another few years.
You say "So, I am arguing if you have scouts who can find a top line forward without even a 7th round pick, saying the development staff hasn't had much to work with is a flimsy excuse." Can you give me an example of someone they should have done better with?
I'm not dodging. Just on my phone and lazy. I'll try to get back to you tomorrow. Feel free to call me out/remind me if I forget
Kings drafted Schenn, who had a good career. Again, I am saying the amateur scouts are doing a great job.
But would you say the Kings "developed" Schenn? He was traded 2 years after being drafted. Played 9 games in the NHL with LA and 7 games in the AHL with Manchester. Do you really think the development staff can claim credit for how his career has turned out?
I repeat, the top line LW the past few seasons is an UNDRAFTED UFA. Amateur scouts nailed it with Iafallo. But undrafted players typically have a very low chance of having a great career.
So, I am arguing if you have scouts who can find a top line forward without even a 7th round pick, saying the development staff hasn't had much to work with is a flimsy excuse.
If you insist they haven't had much to work with, then I'll just disagree. Frankly, a development team shouldn't "need" a high pick to be successful. That's the Edmonton Oilers excuse, whose only good players are top 3 picks.
Again: look at what Ranford did with Quick (3rd tound), Jones (undrafted), Campbell (1st round, but career was almost over). Scrivens had a good run, too. Bernier had a decent career.
If you want to chance plateauing the upcoming promising players by leaving them in the hands of staff who need a high pick to look good, by all means, keep being patient. Nothing wrong with it. I just think the Kings should expect better and fix things before waiting another few years (because we can't judge the current crop for another few years.
No on Zboril...
Puljujarvi types are what we need
We need size and defensive presenceya but our forward cupboard is more stacked than our D
I'd put AMart in bubble wrap and/or sit him some prior to the deadline. The list of teams looking for experienced defense help with Stanley Cup pedigree is long. Hope for that deadline day bidding war and a nice return.
BLuc should have a chat with the fellas who have NMC's, see if they want to play playoff hockey for the remainder of their careers. Just a chat.
Clifford #AlwaysaKing
I didn't know we produced hockey players here.Two thirds and Trevor Moore? Woof, we're not getting **** for Toffoli or Martinez. On the plus side, Moore's a hometown kid from Thousand Oaks, so that's cool.
Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeey!!Time to trade some D!