Speculation: 2019-20 News/Rumors,Roster thread Post Deadline

[KopitarFAN]

In a scenario where the AHL can't play in the fall, is it conceivable that they dump on bunch of guys who have contracts on waivers and give all the spots who would otherwise be playing for Ontario, but given the circumstance aren't playing.

Obviously it's better to have the young guys playing somewhere than not at all, and the guys they would be replacing don't have much of a future in the org.

EDIT: It's also possible that rosters are expanded to accommodate at least some of the AHL players.

 

[HookKing]

They obviously are given their hit list but don't forget the new development guys are....Craig Johnson and Jaroslav Modry.

Maybe it's nitpicking since everything else has been so good but I do doubt their ability to, say, take Turcotte/Vilardi to the next level. They haven't had many blue-chip/skill players to work with so it's sort of a chicken-and-egg thing but it's fair to question imo.

So...because Johnson and Modry weren't Gretzky and Orr they can't possibly be development guys. Got it.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Maybe a landing spot for Futa??

Coyotes CEO, president Ahron Cohen no longer with team

I don’t think that’s the role Futa is looking for nor fit for. The CEO deals with the business side, not hockey. For example, the Kings’ CEO is Dan Beckerman. Futa isn’t going to be brought in to secure a new arena deal, which is what they’re aiming for.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

So...because Johnson and Modry weren't Gretzky and Orr they can't possibly be development guys. Got it.

It's not that, and certainly plenty of organizations have even more no-name guys involved in development that do well.

I just think--and mind you, I did issue a disclaimer above--that people blaming drafting for not bringing in what this forum has called "impact players" for a long time are overlooking the development side of it and I'm just not sure what those guys have to elevate our sudden influx of blue chippers.

These guys have been churning out JAGs for the last two decades and have had NHL placement beyond reproach. But the Doughty's and Kopitars went straight to the NHL, basically, and the guys behind them--largely Carter, Williams, Richards, Gaborik--were veterans/developed elsewhere. Brown benefited from the lockout year, so maybe we could call that development? Iafallo is maybe a modern example of a late-blooming guy who is soaking in development and heading towards being a 50-pt guy himself, but even he developed mostly in NCAA. Outside of one Tyler Toffoli season, the last homegrown 'skill' guy we got to 50 points was Alex Frolov. As noted, that's mostly due to a lack of high forward picks (and system, of course), and that's why I call it chicken-and-egg and it may be an unfair criticism because of that, but it took guys like Pearson, Schenn, Simmonds, et. al. leaving LA to grow their games--I'm just not convinced Craig Johnson and Modry are the guys to turn Alex Turcotte into something more. It's got nothing to do with Orr, and I feel like Craig Johnson is probably the RIGHT guy to be working on skating and power with kaliyev, Vilardi, etc., I just haven't seen anything to suggest this cohort can do more with skill the way, say, Tampa Bay churns out guys like Miller, Cirelli, and so on.

Obviously we're going to get the chance to see and I'd be thrilled to be wrong, but again, Modry and Johnson are just more examples of Blake's inability to look outside his circle.

Now, do you think this is an unfair claim?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Since the new management stepped in, the following players earned full-time NHL spots in the lineup:

Adrian Kempe
Alex Iafallo
Kurtis MacDermid
Michael Amadio
Austin Wagner
Blake Lizotte
Sean Walker
Matt Roy
Cal Petersen

That doesn't include the likes of Gabriel Vilardi, Mikey Anderson, Matt Luff, Carl Grundstrom, Jaret-Anderson Dolan, etc.

The development staff in place, the same ones being called Blake's old cronies (who were already working for the Kings before Blake was brought in), are the ones who have worked with these players to prepare them for the NHL.

This is the youngest group the Kings have iced in quite some time. I think they're doing something right.

 

[HookKing]

It's not that, and certainly plenty of organizations have even more no-name guys involved in development that do well.

I just think--and mind you, I did issue a disclaimer above--that people blaming drafting for not bringing in what this forum has called "impact players" for a long time are overlooking the development side of it and I'm just not sure what those guys have to elevate our sudden influx of blue chippers.

These guys have been churning out JAGs for the last two decades and have had NHL placement beyond reproach. But the Doughty's and Kopitars went straight to the NHL, basically, and the guys behind them--largely Carter, Williams, Richards, Gaborik--were veterans/developed elsewhere. Brown benefited from the lockout year, so maybe we could call that development? Iafallo is maybe a modern example of a late-blooming guy who is soaking in development and heading towards being a 50-pt guy himself, but even he developed mostly in NCAA. Outside of one Tyler Toffoli season, the last homegrown 'skill' guy we got to 50 points was Alex Frolov. As noted, that's mostly due to a lack of high forward picks (and system, of course), and that's why I call it chicken-and-egg and it may be an unfair criticism because of that, but it took guys like Pearson, Schenn, Simmonds, et. al. leaving LA to grow their games--I'm just not convinced Craig Johnson and Modry are the guys to turn Alex Turcotte into something more. It's got nothing to do with Orr, and I feel like Craig Johnson is probably the RIGHT guy to be working on skating and power with kaliyev, Vilardi, etc., I just haven't seen anything to suggest this cohort can do more with skill the way, say, Tampa Bay churns out guys like Miller, Cirelli, and so on.

Obviously we're going to get the chance to see and I'd be thrilled to be wrong, but again, Modry and Johnson are just more examples of Blake's inability to look outside his circle.

Now, do you think this is an unfair claim?

Right. Outside his circle. Perhaps guys like Adam Oates or Marco Sturm might do?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Right. Outside his circle. Perhaps guys like Adam Oates or Marco Sturm might do?

They also tried Pierre Turgeon, and he voluntarily stepped down from his assistant role.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Right. Outside his circle. Perhaps guys like Adam Oates or Marco Sturm might do?

Turgeon played with Blake in Colorado. Oates was an outside consultant--not on the organizational chart--that didn't last long. Sturm was in both LA and SJS though granted him and Blake weren't there at the same times I don't think.

Only Sturm has lasted more than a year, and he's only on 2. None of them have advanced unqualified in the org.

The mere fact that we have to dig this deep for fringe employees shows it to be real, one small exception isn't going to disprove the overall rule. *and yet again, it's not exactly a huge criticism yet, and I have admitted more than once that it's unfair to ask people to prove a negative, that this dev team CANT help Turcotte/Vilardi get to the next level.

 

[Stimpythecat]

 

[HookKing]

Turgeon played with Blake in Colorado. Oates was an outside consultant--not on the organizational chart--that didn't last long. Sturm was in both LA and SJS though granted him and Blake weren't there at the same times I don't think.

Only Sturm has lasted more than a year, and he's only on 2. None of them have advanced unqualified in the org.

The mere fact that we have to dig this deep for fringe employees shows it to be real, one small exception isn't going to disprove the overall rule. *and yet again, it's not exactly a huge criticism yet, and I have admitted more than once that it's unfair to ask people to prove a negative, that this dev team CANT help Turcotte/Vilardi get to the next level.

Dude, you can rationalize with the best of 'em.

 

[BigKing]

No matter how good these prospects turn out, Modry will always suck.

 

[Maynard]

Dude, you can rationalize with the best of 'em.

You straw manned his point. It’s where you exaggerate the other person’s argument (Gretzky and Orr??) and then attack that exaggerated part instead of answering the actual argument.

Yuck.

 

[HookKing]

You straw manned his point. It’s where you exaggerate the other person’s argument (Gretzky and Orr??) and then attack that exaggerated part instead of answering the actual argument.

Yuck.

Is that the best you have -- "yuck".

"Turgeon played with Blake in Colorado. Oates was an outside consultant--not on the organizational chart--that didn't last long. Sturm was in both LA and SJS though granted him and Blake weren't there at the same times I don't think."

If you think that's making the case these guys are in his "circle" whatever the hell that is, good for you. Blake has been in the league for 30+ years there probably isn't anyone he hasn't at least rubbed shoulders with. Maybe he needs to look in the KHL for talent? Oh wait...

 

[Statto]

As HookKing said Blake has a wide circle and I have no issue at all with him drawing from that. The proviso is that he’s not signing just his mate’s but instead using his personal knowledge to assist in assessing the ability of someone to do the job. Inside knowledge of someone’s character is huge in any recruitment context, so in principle it’s a positive for me as long as Blake is objective. Blake strikes me as driven in his career, so I’ve never bought into the whole nepotism nonsense. Blake will do what he believes he needs to, which is using his considerable circle, knowledge and experience to get the right people. Only a fool wouldn’t do that, not in case some people that don’t like him anyway object to the optics.

I’m also not too worried about losing Futa as he seemed to be a guy from the past era, and I’d felt it for some time. Like BigKing I’m not knocking his considerable achievements but I’m not convinced he’s what we need for the future vision of the Kings. He was a key builder of a big heavy (great) Kings team that ran over teams but this isn’t what the new team will be. We have moved on so perhaps this makes absolute sense, we obviously only have a limited insight into what his role and influence had become. However, given the implication is that his influence had reduced and we are very happy with the current drafting direction, is it really something to worry about? Not for me.

 

[KINGS17]

I think one of the things which impressed me regarding the original hiring of Futa was that at the time Futa was a GM in the OHL. Futa knew what was coming in terms of the NHL draft for the next several seasons out of the OHL. Perhaps Futa was too long removed from that time for it to continue to pay off for him in LA. It might suggest that Blake might want to consider a similar strategy by interviewing some OHL GMs for senior scouting and player development positions in the future.

Futa and Yanetti had some gems in the 2nd round. Generally, we are happier with the drafts over the last couple of seasons because the Kings have had higher picks.

 

[kingsboy11]

I'd agree with the Murray/Emerson buddy thing, but those 2 in particular have been in the organization long before Luc/Blake too over the reigns. I think they've been great developing players to be come NHL talent. If you want to complain about not developing high end skill players, then I think that's fair, but they've made MacDermid an NHL player

 

[tbrown33]

I'd agree with the Murray/Emerson buddy thing, but those 2 in particular have been in the organization long before Luc/Blake too over the reigns. I think they've been great developing players to be come NHL talent. If you want to complain about not developing high end skill players, then I think that's fair, but they've made MacDermid an NHL player

Also, I’m not really sure that a player needs to be a superstar in the NHL to develop highly skilled players. Just don’t think that’s how development works.

Regardless, Murray was a 40 goal scorer. Emerson and Craig Johnson were role players but also fantastic skaters. They seem to all have really good heads for the game. I would imagine there’s a lot to be learned from all 3.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Dude, you can rationalize with the best of 'em.

You've really done nothing but shit post for the last several months. Bummer.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

As HookKing said Blake has a wide circle and I have no issue at all with him drawing from that. The proviso is that he’s not signing just his mate’s but instead using his personal knowledge to assist in assessing the ability of someone to do the job. Inside knowledge of someone’s character is huge in any recruitment context, so in principle it’s a positive for me as long as Blake is objective. Blake strikes me as driven in his career, so I’ve never bought into the whole nepotism nonsense. Blake will do what he believes he needs to, which is using his considerable circle, knowledge and experience to get the right people. Only a fool wouldn’t do that, not in case some people that don’t like him anyway object to the optics.

I’m also not too worried about losing Futa as he seemed to be a guy from the past era, and I’d felt it for some time. Like BigKing I’m not knocking his considerable achievements but I’m not convinced he’s what we need for the future vision of the Kings. He was a key builder of a big heavy (great) Kings team that ran over teams but this isn’t what the new team will be. We have moved on so perhaps this makes absolute sense, we obviously only have a limited insight into what his role and influence had become. However, given the implication is that his influence had reduced and we are very happy with the current drafting direction, is it really something to worry about? Not for me.

This is more of what I'm getting at.

I like blake more than most apparently, I think he's good at this job, I appreciate a lot about him and what he's building. And I've been in similar positions where having inside knowledge of people and how they work goes a long, long way. I've admitted I could be wrong (am probably wrong, really), but on appearances alone, Blake hires and promotes his buddies, or at least doesn't search HARD for answers. Sure, he has a considerable circle from his playing days, but he was also a league employee before coming back to the Kings--doesn't he know ANYONE from places he DIDNT play? Don't we remember how many people here were complaining about the Stevens hire? People were upset he didn't search hard outside the org--that's my beef. Then also McLellan? After passing on Gallant et. al.? It's not JUST me. It's a pattern. Could be good, could be bad, could be nothing. But I think it's a fair point to raise and just be aware of.

With respect to the original conversation, I'll concede. I can see I'm in the extreme minority here and I kind of expected that. And I'm absolutely being nitpicky because imo they've shown a lot of strengths and good and in turning fringe players into decent-to-good NHLers maybe I should give them more rope for the Turcottes too.

 

[HookKing]

You've really done nothing but shit post for the last several months. Bummer.

The Alinsky crap you keep pulling is getting real old.

 

[kingsholygrail]

No matter how good these prospects turn out, Modry will always suck.

Modry is a Kings legend.

 

[KINGS17]

I'd agree with the Murray/Emerson buddy thing, but those 2 in particular have been in the organization long before Luc/Blake too over the reigns. I think they've been great developing players to be come NHL talent. If you want to complain about not developing high end skill players, then I think that's fair, but they've made MacDermid an NHL player

I dunno, I think this one is debatable. Murray and Emerson were not complete failures, but they didn't help Pearson and Toffoli stay on the path to becoming dependable 2nd line players.

 

[BigKing]

I dunno, I think this one is debatable. Murray and Emerson were not complete failures, but they didn't help Pearson and Toffoli stay on the path to becoming dependable 2nd line players.

This leads me to my belief that it is mostly on the players and not Craig Johnson's fault if they don't succeed, although everything else that is wrong in the world is Craig Johnson's fault.

Toffoli and Pearson put time in at the AHL level and then came in and immediately produced only to trail off due to succumbing to the general malaise that swept over this team. That said, both are 20 goal/40 point guys already this season so it appears they are dependable 2nd line players.

Did the Kings development staff "develop" them in to the players they were at first and then also the ones that sucked? Do they get credit for their current success?

I don't know...I just can't crap on the Kings development staff because I think so much of it is on the player. How talented are they to begin with and then what is the level of dedication? Pearson was a 1st round pick and Toffoli was a terror in the OHL. As long as they work hard, they were going to succeed. The Kings haven't produced any top level prospects lately but they didn't have much to work with, IMO. I know some posters--that I respect--feel that there have been talented forwards and it has been more of a development problem rather than drafting problem but everyone at the AHL level is talented: they can't all be developed into regular NHL players.

As someone mentioned earlier, I'm going to give credit to the development staff for someone like MacDermid but, again, how hard is the player willing to work? He's a real feather in the cap of the development team because nobody thought he'd be an NHL player. Lot of development time put in to him but it was also put in to a guy that was going to work harder than anyone else to get better. In the same vein, you've got Roy and Walker as other good examples. Lizotte comes in out of nowhere and is in the NHL all season. Is that the development staff or a case of a kid that appears to be a rink rat and just works harder than everyone because he has to just to make the roster?

Then you look at someone like Kempe that looks to just have a lot of natural talent. Is his lack of a breakthrough due to not putting in that extra work because he can always fall back on his skill level and be content or did the Kings develop him incorrectly by trying to force him at the center position when most of us on here have been banging the drum for him at wing for years? I could make that argument but, then again, his scouting report at the draft was that he might not be much of a scorer and could top out as a real good 3rd liner. Is it the development staff's fault if he ultimately winds up as projected or is this what he was always destined to be? How much is the staff and how much is the player?

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

The Alinsky crap you keep pulling is getting real old.

Groan.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Don't worry, I won't be responding to you from now on.

 

[tbrown33]

This leads me to my belief that it is mostly on the players and not Craig Johnson's fault if they don't succeed, although everything else that is wrong in the world is Craig Johnson's fault.

Toffoli and Pearson put time in at the AHL level and then came in and immediately produced only to trail off due to succumbing to the general malaise that swept over this team. That said, both are 20 goal/40 point guys already this season so it appears they are dependable 2nd line players.

Did the Kings development staff "develop" them in to the players they were at first and then also the ones that sucked? Do they get credit for their current success?

I don't know...I just can't crap on the Kings development staff because I think so much of it is on the player. How talented are they to begin with and then what is the level of dedication? Pearson was a 1st round pick and Toffoli was a terror in the OHL. As long as they work hard, they were going to succeed. The Kings haven't produced any top level prospects lately but they didn't have much to work with, IMO. I know some posters--that I respect--feel that there have been talented forwards and it has been more of a development problem rather than drafting problem but everyone at the AHL level is talented: they can't all be developed into regular NHL players.

As someone mentioned earlier, I'm going to give credit to the development staff for someone like MacDermid but, again, how hard is the player willing to work? He's a real feather in the cap of the development team because nobody thought he'd be an NHL player. Lot of development time put in to him but it was also put in to a guy that was going to work harder than anyone else to get better. In the same vein, you've got Roy and Walker as other good examples. Lizotte comes in out of nowhere and is in the NHL all season. Is that the development staff or a case of a kid that appears to be a rink rat and just works harder than everyone because he has to just to make the roster?

Then you look at someone like Kempe that looks to just have a lot of natural talent. Is his lack of a breakthrough due to not putting in that extra work because he can always fall back on his skill level and be content or did the Kings develop him incorrectly by trying to force him at the center position when most of us on here have been banging the drum for him at wing for years? I could make that argument but, then again, his scouting report at the draft was that he might not be much of a scorer and could top out as a real good 3rd liner. Is it the development staff's fault if he ultimately winds up as projected or is this what he was always destined to be? How much is the staff and how much is the player?

We can still always and forever blame Johnson for dealing Adam Deadmarsh the deathblow to his career when he knee’d him in the head at practice.