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

[Rusty Batch]

For the most part the development of a prospect has a lot more to do with the prospect then it does with the organization. Sure there will be some organizations better or worse at it, but I think that's pretty marginal. Prospects don't pan out for lots of reasons but definitely the biggest reason is because they weren't as good of a prospect as you thought they were when you drafted them.

At the end of the day I have a hard time believing that when a player gets drafted into any NHL organization, there would be a lack of development opportunities for that prospect to take advantage of. For example, they have access to high quality coaches, facilities, competition, time, other elite players to interact with, etc...

These are all NHL organizations with a lot of money invested into figuring out how to build a winning franchise.

If a prospect can't take advantage of even the worst NHL organizations resources, than they probably were never going to do it in the first place.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

For the most part the development of a prospect has a lot more to do with the prospect then it does with the organization. Sure there will be some organizations better or worse at it, but I think that's pretty marginal. Prospects don't pan out for lots of reasons but definitely the biggest reason is because they weren't as good of a prospect as you thought they were when you drafted them.

At the end of the day I have a hard time believing that when a player gets drafted into any NHL organization, there would be a lack of development opportunities for that prospect to take advantage of. For example, they have access to high quality coaches, facilities, competition, time, other elite players to interact with, etc...

These are all NHL organizations with a lot of money invested into figuring out how to build a winning franchise.

If a prospect can't take advantage of even the worst NHL organizations resources, than they probably were never going to do it in the first place.

Respectfully disagree on the idea that developmental resources don't play a significant part.

We're talking about the best of the best. Even a 1% improvement--sounds marginal--adds up. Marginal Gains: This Coach Improved Every Tiny Thing by 1 Percent. "How does this happen? How does a team of previously ordinary athletes transform into world champions with tiny changes that, at first glance, would seem to make a modest difference at best?"

Remember that in THIS organization DL came in and was appalled by our offerings. I'd say our ability to churn out regular NHLers at an insanely high rate has to do with certainly drafting but almost certainly development as well.

Do fully agree it still depends on the prospect though, and even a great development team isn't going to save anyone (ie Nail Yakupov bouncing around, for example). I just think development as a whole gets overlooked when people write off prospects.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

A lot of it depends on the set of tools the player has. Take Muzzin, Martinez and Voynov and their ascent to become 20+ minute defensemen, and then you take Forbort who was given every chance to be pillar on defense but turned out to just be an anchor that dragged the pace of play.

We're even seeing it now with defensemen like Roy, Walker and even MacDermid progressing to become regular NHLers who are leaps and bounds better than the likes of Forbort, LaDue and Gravel who were given similar opportunities.

That's a reason why a player who is dumb as rocks like Colten Teubert never made it, even on a defensively starved Oilers squad. Or in the example you used with Yakupov. Filatov is another one who didn't have the will to get better and wanted to play his own style, and he busted spectacularly.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

BTW, if you guys want a good chuckle, I came across the top 20 Kings prospects rankings courtesy of this site. This was prior to the 2008 draft.

1. Jonathan Bernier, G
2. Thomas Hickey, D
3. Ted Purcell, RW
4. Trevor Lewis, C
5. Oscar Moller, RW
6. Brian Boyle, C
7. Wayne Simmonds, RW
8. Peter Harrold, D
9. Matt Moulson, LW
10. Jeff Zatkoff, G
11. Lauri Tukonen, RW
12. Jonathan Quick, G
13. David Meckler, C
14. Scott Parse, LW
15. Patrik Hersley, D
16. Bud Holloway, C
17. Marc-Andre Cliche, RW
18. Alec Martinez, D
19. Joe Piskula, D
20. Daniel Taylor, G

 

[Telos]

Crazy how things work out. I really liked the interview with Purcell lately. My favorite part is when he was talking about playing center against Detroit and Draper:

Teddy Purcell on his L.A. story, going to Ireland, beers...

O’Brien: I got your numbers right here. These are nice numbers. Sixty-seven games played, 25 tucks, 58 apples for 83 points (in 2007-08). That’s a solid year. That’s a great year!

Purcell: Not bad for a rookie, eh! So they gave me a cup of coffee. I think I played 10 games up just to get a taste. Then next year at training camp, they fired (Marc) Crawford and brought in Terry Murray, who absolutely hated me. So they sent me down again and I was poopy pants, but I ended up going down and I think I was a point a game again. And then they called me up. I think I was 30 games in and Dean liked me. He didn’t want to put me on waivers or trade me, and Terry hated me.
They made me play center, and I had never played center in my life, so I remember we’re in Detroit … and I was playing center and their fourth line had (Kris) Draper. So every time we went out there, they put their fourth line out and I think I was 0-for-11 on faceoffs and Terry Murray was giving me shit. And I was like, “Listen, this guy’s got four Cups and has been taking draws for 20 years. My first draw was in the morning skate today.” So at the end of the game, I can’t remember who was up or down, but (Draper) was like, “Hey kid I’ll give you this one.” So I only went 1-for-12, so I’m like, “That’s nice of you, Drapes.”

 

[Brodeur]

Now if you guys want to move on from taking things personally and seek drama within front offices, then you'll enjoy reading this.

Because Benning himself has an extensive scouting background, not to mention his own trusted lieutenants within the Canucks scouting department (such as assistant GM John Weisbrod). And he is the boss, at the end of the day.

It never ceases to amuse me that Weisbrod was once the GM for the Orlando Magic and he was the one who traded away Tracy McGrady. Weisbrod had been working for Orlando's IHL team but got transferred to the Magic when the league folded in 2001.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

It never ceases to amuse me that Weisbrod was once the GM for the Orlando Magic and he was the one who traded away Tracy McGrady. Weisbrod had been working for Orlando's IHL team but got transferred to the Magic when the league folded in 2001.

Now I can’t wait to see Ned Colletti work his way up as Doug Wilson’s assistant in San Jose.

 

[Tadite]

I added NHL games played for fun. Honestly if our current top-20 has a hall of fame player and after a decade 6 other players with over 600 games I'd be happy.

BTW, if you guys want a good chuckle, I came across the top 20 Kings prospects rankings courtesy of this site. This was prior to the 2008 draft.

1. Jonathan Bernier, G 369
2. Thomas Hickey, D 449
3. Ted Purcell, RW 571
4. Trevor Lewis, C 674
5. Oscar Moller, RW 87
6. Brian Boyle, C 805
7. Wayne Simmonds, RW 909
8. Peter Harrold, D 274
9. Matt Moulson, LW 650
10. Jeff Zatkoff, G 48
11. Lauri Tukonen, RW 5
12. Jonathan Quick, G 644
13. David Meckler, C 0
14. Scott Parse, LW 73
15. Patrik Hersley, D 0
16. Bud Holloway, C 1
17. Marc-Andre Cliche, RW 151
18. Alec Martinez, D 607
19. Joe Piskula, D 13
20. Daniel Taylor, G 4

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

I'll die on the hill that Moller could have been an effective 3rd liner. He's had a pretty darn good career overseas. So did Patrik Hersley for that matter.

No more babyface, either!

 

[Herby]

Moller really did have a bizarre career.

Came to NA at 17, played his first game in the NHL at 19, and his final NHL and game on this continent at 22. Never got a second contract, just never came back to NA. He was pretty damn good as a 19 year old that year too, chipped in some offensively and was a responsible player for a kid. I wonder if Moller soured on NA or if he just figured out he was never going to be a fulltime NHL'er.

I think people forget how big a deal he was as a prospect.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Bobby Ryan chased Oscar Moller away from the NHL. I thought he’d spend a couple of seasons in Sweden and then eventually return to the Kings, but that never happened and I don’t believe he ever really came close to making a return.

 

[tny760]

Bobby Ryan chased Oscar Moller away from the NHL. I thought he’d spend a couple of seasons in Sweden and then eventually return to the Kings, but that never happened and I don’t believe he ever really came close to making a return.

that was such a chickenshit hit man. "clean" but chickenshit

him and bud holloway were like attached at the hip too right? i think one of them probably could have stuck in the NHL for a while but unfortunately they were up at the wrong time in league terms. both put together quite the careers in the SEL though so i'm happy for em

 

[KINGS17]

Moller really did have a bizarre career.

Came to NA at 17, played his first game in the NHL at 19, and his final NHL and game on this continent at 22. Never got a second contract, just never came back to NA. He was pretty damn good as a 19 year old that year too, chipped in some offensively and was a responsible player for a kid. I wonder if Moller soured on NA or if he just figured out he was never going to be a fulltime NHL'er.

I think people forget how big a deal he was as a prospect.

Another in a long list of cases of the Kings throwing a young prospect into the deep end with a boat anchor and saying, "Hope you make it kid." Moeller only played 110 games in the AHL over three seasons, while playing 130 games in the NHL. Probably should have been in the AHL for around 200 games and left there for at least one full season.

Not saying he would have made it in the NHL, but he would have had a better chance.

 

[King'sPawn]

If a prospect can't take advantage of even the worst NHL organizations resources, than they probably were never going to do it in the first place.

I disagree with your post for the most part, but disagree with this the most.

As an immediate example, Jack Campbell had his career almost ruined by the Dallas Stars.

Not every player can or will make it, but you are underestimating what a poor developmental staff will do to a good prospect.

 

[tbrown33]

Vilardi, Frk, Wagner talk development, coaching, Reign - LA Kings Insider

Gabriel Vilardi on his extra time spent with the Kings development staff
I think my [situation] is a little bit different than everyone else’s, because I got to spend so much time in LA, but I never really practiced with the team, I was always by myself. I worked with [Craig Johnson and Jarret Stoll] for so many days in the past three years and they’ve helped me a lot, they help everyone out with development skates, watching videos. CJ’s crazy, he’s a hockey nerd. I think I’m a hockey nerd, but he’s way bigger, the guy’s a hockey nerd. He’s sending me videos still about stickhandling, what to do, videos to watch, so it’s cool, but I like that because I’m kind of like that too. It’s pretty cool, they’re awesome and they have good NHL experience, so you listen to what they say and you try to put it into your own game. It’s really good, it’s been very helpful for me.

 

[Statto]

I disagree with your post for the most part, but disagree with this the most.

As an immediate example, Jack Campbell had his career almost ruined by the Dallas Stars.

Not every player can or will make it, but you are underestimating what a poor developmental staff will do to a good prospect.

Completely agree. Edmonton have done an historically dreadful job of developing players also, you can blame poor drafting to some degree but they were terrible at development. Equally we have done a great job of developing players.

There has been limited upside in terms of skill to work with but we have a great record with role and complementary players. Our goaltending development is the shining example though. Quick, Bernier and Jones are great examples. However the rescue jobs on Campbell and Budaj, shows just home good our goalie development has been. Budaj is the one that gets talked about less, he was done at the NHL level and his second season with us saw him record 27 wins from 53 games at 34 years old. It’s no fluke. He then heads to Tampa and his game quickly falls away. Development is a huge factor for so many players.

 

[Stimpythecat]

 

[KingsFan7824]

BTW, if you guys want a good chuckle, I came across the top 20 Kings prospects rankings courtesy of this site. This was prior to the 2008 draft.

1. Jonathan Bernier, G
2. Thomas Hickey, D
3. Ted Purcell, RW
4. Trevor Lewis, C
5. Oscar Moller, RW
6. Brian Boyle, C
7. Wayne Simmonds, RW
8. Peter Harrold, D
9. Matt Moulson, LW
10. Jeff Zatkoff, G
11. Lauri Tukonen, RW
12. Jonathan Quick, G
13. David Meckler, C
14. Scott Parse, LW
15. Patrik Hersley, D
16. Bud Holloway, C
17. Marc-Andre Cliche, RW
18. Alec Martinez, D
19. Joe Piskula, D
20. Daniel Taylor, G

The even funnier thing would be that, at the time, you probably can't argue with the list all that much. Zatkoff had at least equal numbers to Quick in college.

This list also shows why, in part, that the Kings only had a 3 year run. Just not a lot of NHL talent there. Older free agent signings. Lots of trades. Had to trade two 1sts, a top 5 pick, and another quality young forward just to get out of the 1st round of the playoffs.

 

[King'sPawn]

The even funnier thing would be that, at the time, you probably can't argue with the list all that much. Zatkoff had at least equal numbers to Quick in college.

This list also shows why, in part, that the Kings only had a 3 year run. Just not a lot of NHL talent there. Older free agent signings. Lots of trades. Had to trade two 1sts, a top 5 pick, and another quality young forward just to get out of the 1st round of the playoffs.

Not sure I subscribe to that. It was before the 2008 and 2009 drafts where Doughty, Voynov, Nolan, and Clifford were added. The list doesn't include King. Teubert (2008) and Schenn (2009) were also traded away for Penner and Richards.

The list above just shows more how draft pedigree means jack if you have a good developmental staff, even though, over a dozen years later, people still get enamored at the next 18 and 19 year-old first-round pick who will lead the Kings to salvation.

The above is also why I'm not buying into the "the development staff didn't have much to work with this past decade" argument. Breaking down the list, there were:

5 first-round picks (Bernier, Lewis, Tukonen, Boyle, Hickey). Only Lewis and Bernier won the cup
3 second-round picks (Moller, Simmonds, Cliche). Simmonds was traded for Richards.
3 third-round picks. Zatkoff, Quick, Holloway. Only Quick won a cup with LA. Zatkoff was never a starter
1 fourth-round pick. Martinez
2 fifth-round picks: Hersley and Meckler
1 sixth-round pick. Parse
1 seventh-round pick. Taylor
1 ninth-round pick. Moulson
3 undrafted free agents. Piskula, Harrold, Purcell

The third and fourth round picks, Quick and Martinez, have had the highest combination of NHL success and impact. Then a first rounder, Lewis, had success (but at a lesser role). A second rounder, Simmonds, developed into a top-6 player elsewhere but hasn't had cup success.

The point is, the prospect pool prior to the 2008 draft doesn't dictate the window size. The pool is fluid, with many key parts getting added, missed, moved, and developed between 2008 and 2014 to determine a franchise's success.

 

[The Tikkanen]

Completely agree. Edmonton have done an historically dreadful job of developing players also, you can blame poor drafting to some degree but they were terrible at development. Equally we have done a great job of developing players.

There has been limited upside in terms of skill to work with but we have a great record with role and complementary players. Our goaltending development is the shining example though. Quick, Bernier and Jones are great examples. However the rescue jobs on Campbell and Budaj, shows just home good our goalie development has been. Budaj is the one that gets talked about less, he was done at the NHL level and his second season with us saw him record 27 wins from 53 games at 34 years old. It’s no fluke. He then heads to Tampa and his game quickly falls away. Development is a huge factor for so many players.

I think you can make the argument that GabeVilardi is the first Kings prospect that was treated 100% properly from start to finish (we haven't seen the end yet but you get the point).

 

[Rusty Batch]

I disagree with your post for the most part, but disagree with this the most.

As an immediate example, Jack Campbell had his career almost ruined by the Dallas Stars.

Not every player can or will make it, but you are underestimating what a poor developmental staff will do to a good prospect.

I think people disagree with this because it's an excuse for when their favorite prospects bust. "it was the organizations fault."

But there is a reason why the 1st pick is so much more valuable then the 5th pick etc... And that's because the biggest decider on whether or not a prospect succeeds is themselves.

You could point to any organization in the league and I could name players they developed that exceeded their draft expectations and ones that dissapointed. In fact the organization you pointed too has one of the very best prospect development stories of the last couple decades, in Jamie Benn. Benn who was the 129th pick.

They also developed Rope Hintz recently, gurianov looks like hes coming around. Heiskenen is probably the best young d man in the league.

 

[King'sPawn]

I think people disagree with this because it's an excuse for when their favorite prospects bust. "it was the organizations fault."

But there is a reason why the 1st pick is so much more valuable then the 5th pick etc... And that's because the biggest decider on whether or not a prospect succeeds is themselves.

You could point to any organization in the league and I could name players they developed that exceeded their draft expectations and ones that dissapointed. In fact the organization you pointed too has one of the very best prospect development stories of the last couple decades, in Jamie Benn. Benn who was the 129th pick.

They also developed Rope Hintz recently, gurianov looks like hes coming around. Heiskenen is probably the best young d man in the league.

You pointed out the forwards Dallas has drafted. What's the last starting goaltender they drafted and developed?

Read the stories on how Campbell was treated/handled in Dallas.

Read how Lombardi lamented the equipment the organization had when he joined.

While some players admittedly fail to make the NHL due to their own issues, success isn't solely on the players.

And 1st round picks are valuable, because there is potential seen in players relative to their peers.

If development isn't important, then why have developmental staff at all. If development has no place, then all picks are solely luck or scouting.

- if you feel success is based on luck, then you'd see a relative even distribution of picks succeeding for each team. If scouting is solely the cause, then every first round pick of a good scouting team would do better than the second round pick of a good scouting team. Every second round pick would do better than the third round pick, etc.

Attributing success solely to the players is absolving teams of their responsibility and is pretty lazy.

 

[Rusty Batch]

You pointed out the forwards Dallas has drafted. What's the last starting goaltender they drafted and developed?

Read the stories on how Campbell was treated/handled in Dallas.

Read how Lombardi lamented the equipment the organization had when he joined.

While some players admittedly fail to make the NHL due to their own issues, success isn't solely on the players.

And 1st round picks are valuable, because there is potential seen in players relative to their peers.

If development isn't important, then why have developmental staff at all. If development has no place, then all picks are solely luck or scouting.

- if you feel success is based on luck, then you'd see a relative even distribution of picks succeeding for each team. If scouting is solely the cause, then every first round pick of a good scouting team would do better than the second round pick of a good scouting team. Every second round pick would do better than the third round pick, etc.

Attributing success solely to the players is absolving teams of their responsibility and is pretty lazy.

I never said development isn't important. I said the difference between NHL organizations development staffs is marginal.

Always funny when people change someone's argument and then argue against the made up position lol

 

[King'sPawn]

I never said development isn't important. I said the difference between NHL organizations development staffs is marginal.

Always funny when people change someone's argument and then argue against the made up position lol

If the difference in organizations is marginal, then the luck/scouting argument still applies.

"Development isn't important to player's success."
"Development tools available between organizations is a marginal difference, and thus not a factor when attributing a player's success."

Either way, some teams churn out players more often than others. Development isn't a factor to you. So what is it? Bad scouting or bad luck?

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

I think people disagree with this because it's an excuse for when their favorite prospects bust. "it was the organizations fault."

But there is a reason why the 1st pick is so much more valuable then the 5th pick etc... And that's because the biggest decider on whether or not a prospect succeeds is themselves.

You could point to any organization in the league and I could name players they developed that exceeded their draft expectations and ones that dissapointed. In fact the organization you pointed too has one of the very best prospect development stories of the last couple decades, in Jamie Benn. Benn who was the 129th pick.

They also developed Rope Hintz recently, gurianov looks like hes coming around. Heiskenen is probably the best young d man in the league.

I would also toss Klingberg's name out there talking about deep picks.

But development doesn't happen perfectly across all positions. I mean, Dallas specifically hasn't had a great homegrown goalie since Turco. Look at the graveyard they've housed since, and the stories re: Campbell's development. That's a fair criticism.

Also I'm not sure I'd credit Dallas in full for "Developing" Benn given he went from juniors to the NHL. Heiskanen, Finland to Dallas. Guryianov, maybe, but he hasn't broken 30 points yet, what if that guy was wearing a Kings jersey? Forum would be eviscerating a nearly 23-year-old 29 point scorer drafted 12th OA. Hintz is a beauty, full marks there.

here's the list of NHLers Dallas has drafted this decade (and this is EXTREMELY generous, giving anyone with any games credit):

Klingberg
Nemeth--marginal NHLer
Reilly Smith--broke out in Boston
Oleksiak
Brett Ritchie--marginal
Jokipakka--marginal and long gone
Faska--love his game, 13th OA
Devin Shore--tweener
Esa Lindell--beauty when he's not faking death
Gemel Smith--marginal
Nuke--good-ish, but not grat for 10 OA
Dickinson--good depth
Elie--Marginal
Nick Paul--marginal, never suited up for dallas org
Honka--utter bust
Guriyanov
Hintz
Heiskanen


That's with a full contingent of upper-1st round picks, too. 68 total picks, most of whom petered out, not many of whom did anything of note with the Texas Stars, most went from their previous org straight to the show and I can't think of many that have shown much growth since, if anything, many regressed. The vast majority of players making ANY impact were high 1sts. They've hardly hit on anything outside the first round. Is that just bad luck?

Not sure Dallas is the development "model" you want to emulate.