Speculation: 2021-21 LA Kings News/Rumors/Roster discussion

[Herby]

Of course we'd be pumping his tires.

We also wouldn't be going out of their way to say man Turcotte is so good and because of that Hughes Kakko Dach and Byram are regrettable picks.

You're acting like he's a generational prospect which is whatever, you're entitled to a strong opinion, but you're also going out of your way to motherf*** 14 other teams over what's ultimately a miniscule sample size and one before others even get a chance to show what they've got.

You're not receptive to any criticisms of the player, and beyond that, you're pumping him in a way that's derogatory to half the league's front offices and a bunch of rookies-to-be.

You and I have a difference of opinion on when it is proper to start evaluating drafts. Go back and look at drafts, for the most part the best players are already shining through by D+2.

I do find it interesting that when I hype up Kaliyev, Bjornfot and Faber for example, that I get likes from people. When I say a bunch of teams are going to regret passing on Kaliyev and Bjornfot or that Faber should have been a 1st round pick the responses are always positive, yet when I say the same thing about prospects that the Kings passed on like Caufield and Zegras it's immediately met with negative responses. Why is that? Doesn't seem consistent to me. You say I am a homer, that is classic textbook homerism, applying different rules to players based on the team that drafted them. I wish the best for Kings prospects, and I am happy when Kings prospects do well but them being drafted by the Kings, Ducks, Sharks, Canadiens whoever doesn't change my opinion on them.

I place a lot of value on how someone looks in the NHL, it's why I was singing the praises of Stutzle. Byfield came up, and while he didn't look quite as good as Stutzle he clearly showed that he looks like a future 1st line player in the NHL and with his size it can be argued that once he grows into his frame he will be right there, and quite possibly even better. The biggest obstacle is playing in the league, that is the biggest step everyone has to make and when a guy makes it that early after being drafted and looks good the historical data shows that they are almost always impact players. I know people will throw out outliers like Yakupov but the facts are, guys who show this good at a young age very rarely "fizzle out" they simply get better, like everyone else, but that benefit is not given here for some reason. Could Byfield, Caufield and Zegras fizzle out after looking good in the NHL? Sure, but extremely unlikely.

 

[lumbergh]

You and I have a difference of opinion on when it is proper to start evaluating drafts. Go back and look at drafts, for the most part the best players are already shining through by D+2.

I do find it interesting that when I hype up Kaliyev, Bjornfot and Faber for example, that I get likes from people. When I say a bunch of teams are going to regret passing on Kaliyev and Bjornfot or that Faber should have been a 1st round pick the responses are always positive, yet when I say the same thing about prospects that the Kings passed on like Caufield and Zegras it's immediately met with negative responses. Why is that? Doesn't seem consistent to me. You say I am a homer, that is classic textbook homerism, applying different rules to players based on the team that drafted them. I wish the best for Kings prospects, and I am happy when Kings prospects do well but them being drafted by the Kings, Ducks, Sharks, Canadiens whoever doesn't change my opinion on them.

I place a lot of value on how someone looks in the NHL, it's why I was singing the praises of Stutzle. Byfield came up, and while he didn't look quite as good as Stutzle he clearly showed that he looks like a future 1st line player in the NHL and with his size it can be argued that once he grows into his frame he will be right there, and quite possibly even better. The biggest obstacle is playing in the league, that is the biggest step everyone has to make and when a guy makes it that early after being drafted and looks good the historical data shows that they are almost always impact players. I know people will throw out outliers like Yakupov but the facts are, guys who show this good at a young age very rarely "fizzle out" they simply get better, like everyone else, but that benefit is not given here for some reason. Could Byfield, Caufield and Zegras fizzle out after looking good in the NHL? Sure, but extremely unlikely.

Well you put your finger right on it. Most of us want to see our own prospects succeed. Most of us don’t give a shit about some other team’s prospects. You are on point, but sometimes it just doesn’t matter. Not many people here want to hear that some other guy is outperforming our guy. If you’re gonna expect some logical consistency or fairness, you’ve come to the wrong place.

 

[Herby]

Well you put your finger right on it. Most of us want to see our own prospects succeed. Most of us don’t give a shit about some other team’s prospects. You are on point, but sometimes it just doesn’t matter. Not many people here want to hear that some other guy is outperforming our guy. If you’re gonna expect some logical consistency or fairness, you’ve come to the wrong place.

That is fine. But I was the one called a homer first. I also don't think different rules should apply to evaluating players from different teams vs the Kings, especially when there is so much vitriol thrown at "mainboard fans", yes they are dumb, that should mean we should strive to be better.

And I understand rooting for your own prospects, trust me it's great to see the steals the Kings got in Kaliyev, Faber and Bjornfot. But I still don't get an irrational hatred of other teams prospects, but maybe that's just me. I hate the Ducks and Habs, but I can be excited about their American born prospects as they are the next generation of Team USA in best on best.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

You and I have a difference of opinion on when it is proper to start evaluating drafts. Go back and look at drafts, for the most part the best players are already shining through by D+2.

I do find it interesting that when I hype up Kaliyev, Bjornfot and Faber for example, that I get likes from people. When I say a bunch of teams are going to regret passing on Kaliyev and Bjornfot or that Faber should have been a 1st round pick the responses are always positive, yet when I say the same thing about prospects that the Kings passed on like Caufield and Zegras it's immediately met with negative responses. Why is that? Doesn't seem consistent to me. You say I am a homer, that is classic textbook homerism, applying different rules to players based on the team that drafted them. I wish the best for Kings prospects, and I am happy when Kings prospects do well but them being drafted by the Kings, Ducks, Sharks, Canadiens whoever doesn't change my opinion on them.

I place a lot of value on how someone looks in the NHL, it's why I was singing the praises of Stutzle. Byfield came up, and while he didn't look quite as good as Stutzle he clearly showed that he looks like a future 1st line player in the NHL and with his size it can be argued that once he grows into his frame he will be right there, and quite possibly even better. The biggest obstacle is playing in the league, that is the biggest step everyone has to make and when a guy makes it that early after being drafted and looks good the historical data shows that they are almost always impact players. I know people will throw out outliers like Yakupov but the facts are, guys who show this good at a young age very rarely "fizzle out" they simply get better, like everyone else, but that benefit is not given here for some reason. Could Byfield, Caufield and Zegras fizzle out after looking good in the NHL? Sure, but extremely unlikely.

You literally did not respond to one thing I said.

I'm not sure how I can make my criticism clearer.

Acting like 14 NHL GMs are full of regret because of what Caufield has done in a handful of NHL games is shortsighted to put it kindly. I could come up with many, MANY examples of players who didn't start breaking out until D+3, and using 'NHL Debut Age' as a metric for GM regret is pretty silly.

This is less about Caufield arriving and being awesome and more about you writing literally everyone else off.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Well you put your finger right on it. Most of us want to see our own prospects succeed. Most of us don’t give a shit about some other team’s prospects. You are on point, but sometimes it just doesn’t matter. Not many people here want to hear that some other guy is outperforming our guy. If you’re gonna expect some logical consistency or fairness, you’ve come to the wrong place.

That's not even it, though.

Caufield playing well isn't some "oh please don't tell me that" moment.

Acting like a bunch of other GMs f***ed up when those kids aren't even in the NHL yet is the issue.

Jesus Christ am I taking crazy pills here, it's like I'm having a completely different conversation, but I go back and look at what I wrote and nope it's there

 

[Herby]

You literally did not respond to one thing I said.

I'm not sure how I can make my criticism clearer.

Acting like 14 NHL GMs are full of regret because of what Caufield has done in a handful of NHL games is shortsighted to put it kindly. I could come up with many, MANY examples of players who didn't start breaking out until D+3, and using 'NHL Debut Age' as a metric for GM regret is pretty silly.

This is less about Caufield arriving and being awesome and more about you writing literally everyone else off.

I did address it. I believe it's ridiculous to doubt a player who has had a season like this at multiple different levels. At what point do we just say, ok the teams clearly underestimated the type of impact he was going to have at the next levels? The Big Ten is not a low level of competition and he destroyed it this year, absolutely destroyed it like few if any his age ever have. The same is true of Kaliyev, at what point do we just say, "Yeah, teams clearly underestimated his ability and he should have gone higher" I think it's fair to ask it now, you don't, but when is it? When is it fair to criticize and doubt teams for passing on Kaliyev for what certainly appears to be many lesser prospects.

You seem to think that the development of players is not proportional at all, and I think it largely is. I think all of those players will get better, but so will he, the difference is he is already playing on the 1st line in the NHL. I don't believe he (or any of those players) have peaked. They will all improve, I just have a difficult time seeing how many of those guys, specifically the ones I watched closely like York and Turcotte will ever be as good. That is not a knock on either player by the way, both project to be valuable players in the NHL. Saying they are lesser prospects is not a knock.

And yes, part of it is eye-test. I moved 20 years ago and started religiously following that level of hockey and he is the most offensively gifted player I have seen at that level. Is he the best? No, I'd take Toews, Hughes, Werenski Ryan Miller and a few others over him since there is more to the game than offense. You think I have some kind of obsession, and that is fine, but why him? Why a player from a rival school? Why not a Wolverine? Why not a Kings prospect like Turcotte or Jack Johnson?

 

[kingsfan28]

You literally did not respond to one thing I said.

I'm not sure how I can make my criticism clearer.

Acting like 14 NHL GMs are full of regret because of what Caufield has done in a handful of NHL games is shortsighted to put it kindly. I could come up with many, MANY examples of players who didn't start breaking out until D+3, and using 'NHL Debut Age' as a metric for GM regret is pretty silly.

This is less about Caufield arriving and being awesome and more about you writing literally everyone else off.

Exactly.
Remember how great Brian Boyle started out in his first few games with the Kings? Then....

Caufield is no different. Until I see him play a few full season and deals with the grind, I considered him just a young prospect on a hot streak. If any GM feels regret not taking him, after such a small sample size, he shouldn't be a gm.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

I did address it. I believe it's ridiculous to doubt a player who has had a season like this at multiple different levels. At what point do we just say, ok the teams clearly underestimated the type of impact he was going to have at the next levels? The Big Ten is not a low level of competition and he destroyed it this year, absolutely destroyed it like few if any his age ever have. The same is true of Kaliyev, at what point do we just say, "Yeah, teams clearly underestimated his ability and he should have gone higher" I think it's fair to ask it now, you don't, but when is it? When is it fair to criticize and doubt teams for passing on Kaliyev for what certainly appears to be many lesser prospects.

You seem to think that the development of players is not proportional at all, and I think it largely is. I think all of those players will get better, but so will he, the difference is he is already playing on the 1st line in the NHL. I don't believe he (or any of those players) have peaked. They will all improve, I just have a difficult time seeing how many of those guys, specifically the ones I watched closely like York and Turcotte will ever be as good. That is not a knock on either player by the way, both project to be valuable players in the NHL. Saying they are lesser prospects is not a knock.

And yes, part of it is eye-test. I moved 20 years ago and started religiously following that level of hockey and he is the most offensively gifted player I have seen at that level. Is he the best? No, I'd take Toews, Hughes, Werenski Ryan Miller and a few others over him since there is more to the game than offense. You think I have some kind of obsession, and that is fine, but why him? Why a player from a rival school? Why not a Wolverine? Why not a Kings prospect like Turcotte or Jack Johnson?

Okay, I think we just have a framing issue then. Yeah, I know we have different philosophies on prospect development, I don't think this is that.

You're simply saying Caufield is that much better than literally everyone else, focusing on Caufield; I'm focused on the 'everyone else' part, saying they haven't even had a chance yet so calling them 'mistakes' is rough. I.e. you're talking Caufield against the entire field, I'm saying let it play out.

No knock on Caufield but i think a LOT of those guys are going to 'catch up' in short order, as soon as next year imo. And I say that as a guy who believes Caufield is a 40-goal guy at least a few times. It just sounds like you disagree and you're proclaiming CC the no-brainer best player in the class with certainty, but I can't get on board with that until I see some of his contemporaries doing some of their own work too.

 

[Herby]

NHL Leading Scorers and when they became NHL players

McDavid - D+1
Draisaitl - D+2
Marchand - D+4
Marner - D+2
Rantanen - D+2
Kane - D+1
Matthews - D+1
MacKinon - D+1
Scheifele - D+3
Crosby - D+1
Stone - D+4
Huberdeau - D+1
Perron - D+1
Panarin - Overager
Barkov - D+1
Aho - D+2
Guentzel - D+4
DeBrincat - D+2
ROR - D+1
Backstrom - D+2
Landeskog - D+1
Pavelski - D+4
Pacioretty - D+2
Kaprizov - D+6
Kopitar - D+1

The great ones arrive quicker than I think you realize.

 

[Herby]

Okay, I think we just have a framing issue then. Yeah, I know we have different philosophies on prospect development, I don't think this is that.

You're simply saying Caufield is that much better than literally everyone else, focusing on Caufield; I'm focused on the 'everyone else' part, saying they haven't even had a chance yet so calling them 'mistakes' is rough. I.e. you're talking Caufield against the entire field, I'm saying let it play out.

No knock on Caufield but i think a LOT of those guys are going to 'catch up' in short order, as soon as next year imo. And I say that as a guy who believes Caufield is a 40-goal guy at least a few times. It just sounds like you disagree and you're proclaiming CC the no-brainer best player in the class with certainty, but I can't get on board with that until I see some of his contemporaries doing some of their own work too.

I believe he should have been the 3rd pick in the draft and think he would have been had he been even 5'10 instead of 5'7. Hughes and Kaako were seen as special players coming out so he didn't warrant jumping them. Kaako is a big boy who had a massive draft year in the Finnish league and had a big World Championships and Hughes was considered borderline generational and the consensus #1, an analysis that looks to be over inflated, and no I don't think it's to early to say that 2 years in, if he were he'd have shown more by now like similar players did by the end of their D+2. Teams were scared off that Caufield's game wasn't going to translate to the NHL (shit some questioned how he'd do in the Big 10) and those concerns were fair, no one his size had ever been taken that high and much like with Kopitar being Slovenian and drafting someone from that country was a new thing to them, so to was drafting someone 5'7. No matter how uber talented both players were those things couldn't be overlooked by much of the league.

I just look at that draft and not a ton jumps out at me. I think it's a draft that is going to be solid, but lack anything resembling a locked in generational star. Look at the list above, great players start to show through by now.

Hughes and Kaako have both been disappointments based on hype. If they were going to be big stars we'd probably have seen a bit more by now. Not saying they are busts, both will still probably be 1st liners but not players worthy of the stress we had that night we lost the lottery and thought the world was over. You could go either way and I wouldn't fault anyone for taking either over him if you still believe in either guy.

Dach struggled when many expected a big step so it's fair to question. I'm not writing him off but a future star? Idk anymore. His size and skill make him intriguing and like the other two I wouldn't fault anyone for taking the bigger center but Dach might be more a RyJo.

Byram and Turcotte both look like higher floor but lower ceiling prospects 2 years out. No way am I taking either when there is a player with Caufield's ceiling. But that might be ideological, I'm just looking for more ceiling plays out of picks that high.

Boldy and Zegras - . Boldy took a big step this year, he is a big boy still growing into his frame and he was noticeably better in college and really killed it in the AHL. Zegras is someone I have about on par with Caufield. I think despite having different styles they both provide that point per game game breaking offensive upside, although getting there in different ways.

Cozens - Big boy, looked ok in the NHL for a 19 year old, but does he present you with star upside? I don't think so. I don't think he's a top 15 pick if he's not 6'3 195. Would have been the Kings pick if Dave Taylor were still GM.

Broberg and Soderstrom - Just haven't seen enough to formulate an opinion. But the consensus seems to be that neither is going to be a star blueliner.

York - Seen him a ton, will play 15 years in the league as an excellent #3 or #4 d-man. No way on God's Green Earth would I take him over Caufield. They are on different levels.

Knight - I've given up trying to analyze goalies, but I will say it's pretty telling that Florida thought enough to turn to him as their starter at age 19. But I don't feel comfortable enough commenting on goalies. But if he's a superstar goaltender he is a better prospect than anyone in the draft.

Seider - Right handed defenseman, huge size, great defensively, way more skill than advertised. I saw this guy play in person the AHL last year and he's a future star. Would have been an NHL regular this year if not for Covid. This is probably the highest value player in this draft right now. I would take him before I'd take Caufield and not think twice. If people would never be happy taking a 5'7 winger than this is the guy I think the Kings should have taken. Give Detroit credit, everyone said it was a reach but there is a lot to like.

So no. I don't think 14 teams made a mistake. Teams had their reasons, and those are valid but he has already cleared the biggest hurdles and questions that many had by being able to be this dynamic at the NHL level so fast. I just see no way that a player with this type of skill isn't at the very least a 35 goal guy, with legit Richard upside any season. There are just very few guys in the league who can shoot the puck like him, doesn't matter if he's 7'7 or 5'7 the arsenal of shots is as good as you will ever see.

 

[Rusty Batch]

NHL Leading Scorers and when they became NHL players

McDavid - D+1
Draisaitl - D+2
Marchand - D+4
Marner - D+2
Rantanen - D+2
Kane - D+1
Matthews - D+1
MacKinon - D+1
Scheifele - D+3
Crosby - D+1
Stone - D+4
Huberdeau - D+1
Perron - D+1
Panarin - Overager
Barkov - D+1
Aho - D+2
Guentzel - D+4
DeBrincat - D+2
ROR - D+1
Backstrom - D+2
Landeskog - D+1
Pavelski - D+4
Pacioretty - D+2
Kaprizov - D+6
Kopitar - D+1

The great ones arrive quicker than I think you realize.

I do agree with the point you are making. The counter to it though is that the Kings are not trying to win games now. They are trying to tank and preserve ELC's. So I don't think it's all that relevant how quickly our prospect pool makes the NHL because clearly if the focus was to put the best players on the ice then guys like Turcotte, Byfield, and Kaliyev would already have spent the year in the NHL.

Kings are just tanking and delaying the start of ELCs.

 

[YP44]

I'm one of those idiots. I was actually pleased to drop in the standings the last game of the 2018 season so we could avoid the Ducks since the Kings had played Vegas better that season. One week later, both the Kings and Ducks were out of the playoffs and have never been seen or heard from again...

I was too.. i remember the initial plan for vegas was to select guys on expiring deals than flip them for picks at the deadline. Issue was the team ended up being good.

Seattle should follow the initial plan for vegas IMO. The success of the knights is likely not able to be reproduced.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

NHL Leading Scorers and when they became NHL players

McDavid - D+1
Draisaitl - D+2
Marchand - D+4
Marner - D+2
Rantanen - D+2
Kane - D+1
Matthews - D+1
MacKinon - D+1
Scheifele - D+3
Crosby - D+1
Stone - D+4
Huberdeau - D+1
Perron - D+1
Panarin - Overager
Barkov - D+1
Aho - D+2
Guentzel - D+4
DeBrincat - D+2
ROR - D+1
Backstrom - D+2
Landeskog - D+1
Pavelski - D+4
Pacioretty - D+2
Kaprizov - D+6
Kopitar - D+1

The great ones arrive quicker than I think you realize.

You're actually helping make my point here because you may recall me saying "nhl arrival" isn't the metric for success.

-Draisaitl put up 50 points at 20, 70 the next two years--he didn't start having monster seasons until 23 (makes me think of Byfield).
-Marchand didn't even score 60 points until he was 27, didn't start putting up 80+ until 28.
-Rantanen had a 38 point rookie year; that's about what Vilardi's doing and look how people around here feel about him.
-MacKinnon was pretty famously 4 years deep before he started going off.
-Scheifele didn't put up 60 until 22, 80 until 23.
-Huberdeau was being called a mild bust until 24, when he put up 69 and hasn't looked back.

Could keep going but you get the idea.

I don't think Caufield is in that McDavid, Matthews, Crosby tier that you seem to be suggesting. He's been a beauty for sure but he's not putting up anything remotely like their numbers or play. If anything, my point is if you would have taken Caufield over, say, Huberdeau because he debuted earlier and Hubie wasn't doing anything for a few years, you'd be looking a little premature.

IMO I was a little surprised CC fell out of the top 10 if i recall correctly and I agree with you it's mostly the old way of thinking stuck there. I just don't think, say, the Ducks are going to be too grumpy about it if Zegras is putting up 80 points, Col is gonna be too upset when Byram is cruising around, etc.

And the issues you're attributing to Dach could easily happen to Caufield next year--I'm curious what that would do to your argument?

Ultimately I know this is just a continued disagreement on philosophy between you and I so I'm not trying to dismiss it--just trying to explain why I feel like this version of it was rubbing me the wrong way. And in short, I guess it's just that I don't see a giant disparity between Caufield and the field the way you do. Agree to disagree because I think as of next year some of these kids are gonna show up roaring.

 

[KingsFan7824]

In 2006, had you said that the Kings would completely miss on a #4 overall pick in 2007, screw up the 2nd of two 1st rd picks in 2008, and trade the 5th overall pick from 2009 before ever winning a playoff series, how do you think the future of that team is seen?

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

In 2006, had you said that the Kings would completely miss on a #4 overall pick in 2007, screw up the 2nd of two 1st rd picks in 2008, and trade the 5th overall pick from 2009 before ever winning a playoff series, how do you think the future of that team is seen?

 

[Martyros]

We would have 14 stanley cups if we didn't draft Jens Karlsson.

 

[Herby]

You're actually helping make my point here because you may recall me saying "nhl arrival" isn't the metric for success.

-Draisaitl put up 50 points at 20, 70 the next two years--he didn't start having monster seasons until 23 (makes me think of Byfield).
-Marchand didn't even score 60 points until he was 27, didn't start putting up 80+ until 28.
-Rantanen had a 38 point rookie year; that's about what Vilardi's doing and look how people around here feel about him.
-MacKinnon was pretty famously 4 years deep before he started going off.
-Scheifele didn't put up 60 until 22, 80 until 23.
-Huberdeau was being called a mild bust until 24, when he put up 69 and hasn't looked back.

Could keep going but you get the idea.

I don't think Caufield is in that McDavid, Matthews, Crosby tier that you seem to be suggesting. He's been a beauty for sure but he's not putting up anything remotely like their numbers or play. If anything, my point is if you would have taken Caufield over, say, Huberdeau because he debuted earlier and Hubie wasn't doing anything for a few years, you'd be looking a little premature.

IMO I was a little surprised CC fell out of the top 10 if i recall correctly and I agree with you it's mostly the old way of thinking stuck there. I just don't think, say, the Ducks are going to be too grumpy about it if Zegras is putting up 80 points, Col is gonna be too upset when Byram is cruising around, etc.

And the issues you're attributing to Dach could easily happen to Caufield next year--I'm curious what that would do to your argument?

Ultimately I know this is just a continued disagreement on philosophy between you and I so I'm not trying to dismiss it--just trying to explain why I feel like this version of it was rubbing me the wrong way. And in short, I guess it's just that I don't see a giant disparity between Caufield and the field the way you do. Agree to disagree because I think as of next year some of these kids are gonna show up roaring.

I wasn't really using those facts to prop up Caufield but more to say that the rest of 2019 draft is trending downwards as far as producing truly elite offensive players, and that is largely because the Top 5, where the vast majority of the leagues best forwards are drafted doesn't look like it's going to produce a caliber of player like the ones that were listed. I certainly could be wrong and a year 3 breakthrough could be possible for them, but historically you usually see more within the first two years than those five guys have shown.

If Zegras is an 80-90 point player and Caufield is a 45 goal guy will it be the end of the world to the Avs, Kings and Flyers if Byram is a 3D, Turcotte is a 2C and York is a 3D? No, it won't be the end of the world but yes there certainbly will be regret with the picks because players like that are just more difficult to acquire than 2nd pairing players or 2nd line players. There are just so few players in the league with say the vision of Zegras and the shooting ability of Caufield that their value is magnified, you can realistically always go out and get a 2C or a 3D, its not nearly as easy to get a 1C or a 40 goal winger.

And just to clarify, I don't believe that Caufield (or Zegras) are at the level of a McDavid, Matthews or MacKinnon, I hope you don't think that. He is a one-dimensional offensive player with significant imitations, Zegras has limitations too, compared to those other superstars., But even with those limitations they are still more valuable assets right now than some of the guys taken before them.

 

[Herby]

In 2006, had you said that the Kings would completely miss on a #4 overall pick in 2007, screw up the 2nd of two 1st rd picks in 2008, and trade the 5th overall pick from 2009 before ever winning a playoff series, how do you think the future of that team is seen?

When you draft 3 Hall of Fame caliber players within 3 years of each other like the Kings did it gives you breathing room to make those kinds of mistakes.

Tampa got nothing out of 1st round picks in 2006, 2009 (2nd one), 2011, 2014 and took Jonathan Drouin over Seth Jones in 2013 but it didn't matter when you draft Hall of Fame players in 2008, 2009 and 2011.

Pittsburgh drafted busts in the 1st round in 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 but it didn't matter because they drafted three Hall of Famers in successive drafts right before that.

Who projects as those types of players in the Kings next wave?

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

When you draft 3 Hall of Fame caliber players within 3 years of each other like the Kings did it gives you breathing room to make those kinds of mistakes.

Tampa got nothing out of 1st round picks in 2006, 2009 (2nd one), 2011, 2014 and took Jonathan Drouin over Seth Jones in 2013 but it didn't matter when you draft Hall of Fame players in 2008, 2009 and 2011.

Pittsburgh drafted busts in the 1st round in 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 but it didn't matter because they drafted three Hall of Famers in successive drafts right before that.

Who projects as those types of players in the Kings next wave?

To be fair no one was projecting Quick over Bernier at the time and until he came over Kopitar was a question mark too.

It's an important question to ask but I don't think any team in the league can answer this until it happens, not LA, not NYR, not Ottawa. For all we know the answer is Byfield, Cossa, Grans.

 

[Herby]

To be fair no one was projecting Quick over Bernier at the time and until he came over Kopitar was a question mark too.

It's an important question to ask but I don't think any team in the league can answer this until it happens, not LA, not NYR, not Ottawa. For all we know the answer is Byfield, Cossa, Grans.

Was going to do Chicago too. They drafted busts in 04, 05, 08, 09 and 2011. Another one (Hayes in 2010) never signed and they gave away 2 more in TT and Danault in terrible deals.

Didn't matter when you draft 3 Hall of Famers over a 4 year period.

And the thing about the majority of players listed, they were Top 5 picks. Ultimately unless he blows it up and DD leaves this summer that is going to be the biggest challenge Blake is going to have to overcome, he just wasn't bad enough long enough to collect enough of those picks to have a successful rebuild that will lead to multiple cups. The Kings had only two of those picks, and as much as I know you love Turcotte even you would agree he projects more as a well rounded floor guy than someone with a superstar ceiling.

It's the biggest reason I either want to pull the trigger on Eichel or pull the trigger on Doughty. Its the most reasonable way to get another potential superstar next to QB going forward.

 

[No Name The Nameless]

Here is a better question. Knowing what we know today, who would you rather have drafted at 5 between CC and Turcotte?

I still choose Turcotte because he's skilled and a leader.

Next question. Redraft the top 5.

 

[Herby]

Here is a better question. Knowing what we know today, who would you rather have drafted at 5 between CC and Turcotte?

I still choose Turcotte because he's skilled and a leader.

Next question. Redraft the top 5.

Caufield. I can find a well rounded 2C in any draft. Drafting intangibles over talent in the top 5 is IMO atleast a poor strategy.

1. Seider (has best chance of anyone from this draft to be a true franchise player)
2. Hughes
3. Zegras
4. Caufield
5. Kaako
6. Dach
7. Cozens
8. Byram
9. Knight
10. Hoglander
11. Boldy
12. Newhook
13. Kaliyev
14. Bjornfot
15. Pinto
16. Turcotte
17. Heinola
18. Krebs
19. Soderstrom
20. York

Honestly, it's a very muddled draft. It's a very very deep but it lacks elite high end talent it's why I would have targeted a higher ceiling guy in this draft. But there isn't a ton of difference between like 7 and 20. Personal preference, how you value positions and whether you are willing to risk a homerun for a strikeout or prefer to be Tony Gwynn.

Edit: I should have Hoglander higher. He was dynamic as a barely 20 year old this season. This re-draft got really tough to do after Dach.

 

[Sol]

when was the last time we've gotten a top end talent in the draft thats made an impact in the NHL besides ........ Kubalik. There's no reason to have faith in our prospects panning out. It's not in our cards.

 

[johnjm22]

You've gotta hope the 2019 draft turns out to be a landmark moment for this franchise.

As long as the Kings don't do anything stupid and start trading prospects away, all 3 of Kaliyev, Turcotte and Bjornfot will play on the NHL roster together at some point this upcoming season.

I also think there's a relatively good chance that one of Fagemo, Parik, Spence or Nousiainen turns out to be a quality NHLer. That would make for an incredibly successful draft.

 

[Rusty Batch]

Was going to do Chicago too. They drafted busts in 04, 05, 08, 09 and 2011. Another one (Hayes in 2010) never signed and they gave away 2 more in TT and Danault in terrible deals.

Didn't matter when you draft 3 Hall of Famers over a 4 year period.

And the thing about the majority of players listed, they were Top 5 picks. Ultimately unless he blows it up and DD leaves this summer that is going to be the biggest challenge Blake is going to have to overcome, he just wasn't bad enough long enough to collect enough of those picks to have a successful rebuild that will lead to multiple cups. The Kings had only two of those picks, and as much as I know you love Turcotte even you would agree he projects more as a well rounded floor guy than someone with a superstar ceiling.

It's the biggest reason I either want to pull the trigger on Eichel or pull the trigger on Doughty. Its the most reasonable way to get another potential superstar next to QB going forward.

I don't really think it's fair to pretend that Turcotte was this high floor low ceiling type prospect when he was drafted though. On a ppg basis he outproduce everyone from the US program in the season leading up to his draft with the exception of Hughes (and he even had more ppg in the USHL then Hughes but not in the USDP).

I remember pre-draft a bunch of my nerdy analytics friends who had him pegged as the 3rd ranked prospect in terms of offensive upside behind only Hughes and Kakko. That was all based on stats though. I think Zegras and Caufield were more of the eye test guys with bigger offensive upside. But there was certainly a very strong statistical argument to be made that it was Turcotte that had the highest offensive ceiling outside of the top two prospects in that draft.