Speculation: 2021-22 LA Kings News, Rumors, Roster Thread Part VI

[All The Kings Men]

I'm sorry you feel that way. I honestly don't recall what you've said specifically, but not because it's unimportant.

Here's the short version...

regardless of who they scouted/drafted/developed, going all the way back to the start of Lombardi's tenure there was an organizational focus on filling out the roles (Top 9 F) people are asking about with outside help.

Top 9 forwards that were given roles they wouldn't easily be bumped from

Smyth
Williams
Handzus
Penner
Gagne
Richards
Carter
Stoll
Gaborik
Lucic
Lecavalier
Iginla
Kovalchuk

Now toss in
Kopitar
Brown
Toffoli
Pearson

AND an organizational focus on a certain type of player (King, Nolan, Clifford, Lewis etc)

where were these forwards that people wish they developed going to play?

I don't think people can just ignore the contributions/playing time/opportunites of Toffoli, Pearson, Kempe, Iafallo and suggest that it "doesn't count" somehow.

The team might not have been in contention but they thought they were and they made moves based on that supposition. The fault, it seems to me, was not in "developing players incorrectly" but in evaluating the state of the team and what it would need to change direction.

Plenty of people have made that case before on these boards... I just don't think you can have it both ways.

In my mind, you can't be criticized for making the wrong meal AND be criticized for buying the wrong ingredients for a meal you weren't cooking.

 

[DryIslandBartender]

Byfields AHL production to guys currently in the NHL on the grounds of none of them are coming off a f***ing broken ankle followed by covid. He was always a longer-term pick that had a setback. if you want to be impatient with Turcotte at this point fine

The issue is that these guys is where they were picked and the accolades that they came with. Specifically with Byfield, scouts noted his size and that he could make the jump to the nhl sooner than later.

The frustration for me is the roster building by the org by stacking up on centers, draft and free agency and that delays/hampers any development of Byfield, Turcotte, Vilardi, Kupari etc.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

The issue is that these guys is where they were picked and the accolades that they came with. Specifically with Byfield, scouts noted his size and that he could make the jump to the nhl sooner than later.

The frustration for me is the roster building by the org by stacking up on centers, draft and free agency and that delays/hampers any development of Byfield, Turcotte, Vilardi, Kupari etc.

That's not how I remember it; I remember many specifically saying Byfield is a little raw and if a team can wait a little on him to grow and develop he could be the best player from the draft. And that was before the setback. Byfield even more so than the others though you can make similar cases due to injury history on Turcotte and Vilardi. Believe me I get the frustration with draft slot --> roster slot and contribution but especially using the last 6 AHL games against Byfield feels especially insulting.

100% with you on the 2nd point though. These guys have had enough developmental speedbumps personally, they don't need the org doing it as well.

 

[King'sPawn]

Here's the short version...

regardless of who they scouted/drafted/developed, going all the way back to the start of Lombardi's tenure there was an organizational focus on filling out the roles (Top 9 F) people are asking about with outside help.

Top 9 forwards that were given roles they wouldn't easily be bumped from

Smyth
Williams
Handzus
Penner
Gagne
Richards
Carter
Stoll
Gaborik
Lucic
Lecavalier
Iginla
Kovalchuk

Now toss in
Kopitar
Brown
Toffoli
Pearson

AND an organizational focus on a certain type of player (King, Nolan, Clifford, Lewis etc)

where were these forwards that people wish they developed going to play?

I don't think people can just ignore the contributions/playing time/opportunites of Toffoli, Pearson, Kempe, Iafallo and suggest that it "doesn't count" somehow.

The team might not have been in contention but they thought they were and they made moves based on that supposition. The fault, it seems to me, was not in "developing players incorrectly" but in evaluating the state of the team and what it would need to change direction.

Plenty of people have made that case before on these boards... I just don't think you can have it both ways.

In my mind, you can't be criticized for making the wrong meal AND be criticized for buying the wrong ingredients for a meal you weren't cooking.

I feel really bad I missed that. If I'm misunderstanding, please clarify. But it sounds like Blake thought he had one type of team, and so he drafted/developed players to fit that mold. And that's why they had "less skill dependent" players, and why they've followed this model of development?

 

[Statto]

That's not how I remember it; I remember many specifically saying Byfield is a little raw and if a team can wait a little on him to grow and develop he could be the best player from the draft.

This.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

Boldy has been at or above a point per game at every single level of hockey he's played since his draft year. USNTDP, AHL, NHL, WJC. All of them.

That's how I define "excelled".

Matt Boldy at eliteprospects.com

He has, and you are measuring a GRAND TOTAL of 29 PRO hockey games....sorry, that's way too f***ing small of a sample size to say anyone has EXCELLED at anything..... is he good, absolutely, he wouldn't have been drafted, nor would have had a PPG career, but tell me, does he stop excelling when he goes pointless the next 3 games?

 

[DryIslandBartender]

That's not how I remember it; I remember many specifically saying Byfield is a little raw and if a team can wait a little on him to grow and develop he could be the best player from the draft. And that was before the setback. Byfield even more so than the others though you can make similar cases due to injury history on Turcotte and Vilardi. Believe me I get the frustration with draft slot --> roster slot and contribution but especially using the last 6 AHL games against Byfield feels especially insulting.

100% with you on the 2nd point though. These guys have had enough developmental speedbumps personally, they don't need the org doing it as well.

I recall the discussion on Byfield/Stutzle on reaching potential was that it would take Byfield longer because he needs to fill out his frame due to his style vs Stutzle. However Byfields size also made him more nhl ready than Stutzle.

There were a lot of discussions about Byfield being the next Mark Messier or Malkin type of player. Which sounds exciting but again, the Kings had a log jam of centers already then and even more so now. I’m not sure what the plan is in terms of development but maybe that will clear up by the trade deadline, who knows.

 

[All The Kings Men]

I feel really bad I missed that. If I'm misunderstanding, please clarify. But it sounds like Blake thought he had one type of team, and so he drafted/developed players to fit that mold. And that's why they had "less skill dependent" players, and why they've followed this model of development?

I don't think it's a question of which players they drafted or how they were "developed" (which is a nebulous term to me. It doesn't mean anything outside of the specific context someone is using it)... it's about how much time/opportunity those players were given to "prove" their worth.

I don't think it's limited to one person/one regime either.

They were "right" from 2010-2014 and it cost them a ton of draft capital to reach that peak. I'm not terribly interested in digging into the Kings draft picks from 2012 - 2017 but it seems fairly clear to me that they were drafting differently following the transition from Lombardi to Blake.

My contention has always been that the org began "rebuilding" with the acquisition of Cal Petersen and the transition from Lombardi to Blake. These franchises are rarely as simple as "Executive A makes a judgement and then acts unilaterally"

There are multiple levels or management, ownership etc that get input. There are multiple competing goals... profits, development, reputation etc 2014 -2015 is a well documented mess, 2016 one could make the argument everything was on track, 2016-17 was the injury riddled season, 2017-18 one could argue everything appeared to be back on track, 2018-19 the wheels came off.

I'm all over the place here but I'll just toss in another factor that I rarely see get mentioned.

The Kuemper trade was, in my totally speculative opinion, a move specifically designed to send a message to players in the NHL about how the LA Kings would treat their players. Both Blake and Robitaille left the Kings on multiple occasions under... "less than ideal" situations. Lombardi mishandled Richards, Voynov and arguably Brown.

I asked Blake about the Kuemper trade and he told me to my face it was done as a favor to Kuemper to help him maximize the career opportunity he had created with his strong bounce back play in LA.

I believe the same motivation is in play for the option given to 11/23/77/8/32 about how and when to end their tenure here. Carter chose to exit and even Doughty expressed some surprise at it. I understand why some people think that's a mistake. I understand why looking back at 2015 some people assumed the party was over already.

What I understand now after spending some time seeing how the machine actually works is that nothing is ever as simple as people want it to be.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

I don't think it's a question of which players they drafted or how they were "developed" (which is a nebulous term to me. It doesn't mean anything outside of the specific context someone is using it)... it's about how much time/opportunity those players were given to "prove" their worth.

I don't think it's limited to one person/one regime either.

They were "right" from 2010-2014 and it cost them a ton of draft capital to reach that peak. I'm not terribly interested in digging into the Kings draft picks from 2012 - 2017 but it seems fairly clear to me that they were drafting differently following the transition from Lombardi to Blake.

My contention has always been that the org began "rebuilding" with the acquisition of Cal Petersen and the transition from Lombardi to Blake. These franchises are rarely as simple as "Executive A makes a judgement and then acts unilaterally"

There are multiple levels or management, ownership etc that get input. There are multiple competing goals... profits, development, reputation etc 2014 -2015 is a well documented mess, 2016 one could make the argument everything was on track, 2016-17 was the injury riddled season, 2017-18 one could argue everything appeared to be back on track, 2018-19 the wheels came off.

I'm all over the place here but I'll just toss in another factor that I rarely see get mentioned.

The Kuemper trade was, in my totally speculative opinion, a move specifically designed to send a message to players in the NHL about how the LA Kings would treat their players. Both Blake and Robitaille left the Kings on multiple occasions under... "less than ideal" situations. Lombardi mishandled Richards, Voynov and arguably Brown.

I asked Blake about the Kuemper trade and he told me to my face it was done as a favor to Kuemper to help him maximize the career opportunity he had created with his strong bounce back play in LA.

I believe the same motivation is in play for the option given to 11/23/77/8/32 about how and when to end their tenure here. Carter chose to exit and even Doughty expressed some surprise at it. I understand why some people think that's a mistake. I understand why looking back at 2015 some people assumed the party was over already.

What I understand now after spending some time seeing how the machine actually works is that nothing is ever as simple as people want it to be.

They've definitely done more than a few guys a solid lately and you have to wonder what impact that has on UFAs vs. the past. Edler was a very, very good signing, for example, I don't think that one happens a few years ago, competitive or not.

 

[All The Kings Men]

They've definitely done more than a few guys a solid lately and you have to wonder what impact that has on UFAs vs. the past. Edler was a very, very good signing, for example, I don't think that one happens a few years ago, competitive or not.

It's all fine and dandy for people (myself included sometimes) to say "well just be exactly like Bill Belechik and treat players like disposable commodities and everything will be fine!!!"

I'm not sure that's true. At least not in a "non traditional hockey market".

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

They've definitely done more than a few guys a solid lately and you have to wonder what impact that has on UFAs vs. the past. Edler was a very, very good signing, for example, I don't think that one happens a few years ago, competitive or not.

Agreed, and when organizations do that, I think it does make a difference......I don't think Danault signs here without that either....

 

[funky]

I don't think it's a question of which players they drafted or how they were "developed" (which is a nebulous term to me. It doesn't mean anything outside of the specific context someone is using it)... it's about how much time/opportunity those players were given to "prove" their worth.

I don't think it's limited to one person/one regime either.

They were "right" from 2010-2014 and it cost them a ton of draft capital to reach that peak. I'm not terribly interested in digging into the Kings draft picks from 2012 - 2017 but it seems fairly clear to me that they were drafting differently following the transition from Lombardi to Blake.

My contention has always been that the org began "rebuilding" with the acquisition of Cal Petersen and the transition from Lombardi to Blake. These franchises are rarely as simple as "Executive A makes a judgement and then acts unilaterally"

There are multiple levels or management, ownership etc that get input. There are multiple competing goals... profits, development, reputation etc 2014 -2015 is a well documented mess, 2016 one could make the argument everything was on track, 2016-17 was the injury riddled season, 2017-18 one could argue everything appeared to be back on track, 2018-19 the wheels came off.

I'm all over the place here but I'll just toss in another factor that I rarely see get mentioned.

The Kuemper trade was, in my totally speculative opinion, a move specifically designed to send a message to players in the NHL about how the LA Kings would treat their players. Both Blake and Robitaille left the Kings on multiple occasions under... "less than ideal" situations. Lombardi mishandled Richards, Voynov and arguably Brown.

I asked Blake about the Kuemper trade and he told me to my face it was done as a favor to Kuemper to help him maximize the career opportunity he had created with his strong bounce back play in LA.

I believe the same motivation is in play for the option given to 11/23/77/8/32 about how and when to end their tenure here. Carter chose to exit and even Doughty expressed some surprise at it. I understand why some people think that's a mistake. I understand why looking back at 2015 some people assumed the party was over already.

What I understand now after spending some time seeing how the machine actually works is that nothing is ever as simple as people want it to be.

I was told the exact same thing from one of Darcy’s family members I work with. The kings cannot afford to give him a second contract that was fair.

The coyotes had approached Blake about trading for Kuemper and Blake went to Darcy and asked if he would be OK with it and explained the Kings position for the next year. Left in in Darcy’s hands.

If you go back through my previous messages you can see I was wanting LA to trade for Kuemper for years and I wasn’t a fan of the trade until I was told the circumstances behind it. It worked out well for Darcy in the end.

Or a sidenote I was also told that Darcy thought the organization was first class and he learned a ton from Our goaltending coaches and thought everything right down to practices were top end.

 

[kilowatt]

Can't f***ing take it anymore, had to put GoldenBearHockey on ignore. Good riddance.

 

[Herby]

No, it's called being facetious, your argument is total garbage....Boldy is great, he's played one game, and scored one goal....OMG he would have been drafted ahead of Turcotte, that was your argument, and it's complete and utter bullshit.

You are embarrassing yourself.

He is basing things off 1 game? Boldy has 10G and 28 Pts in 24 AHL games as a 19-20 year old before getting called up and scoring in his debut.

This after scoring 31 points in 22 games as a sophomore at BC. (Boy wouldn't it have been nice to have a D+2 season like that for Turcotte?)

But yes, he is basing things off 1 game.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

He has, and you are measuring a GRAND TOTAL of 29 PRO hockey games....sorry, that's way too f***ing small of a sample size to say anyone has EXCELLED at anything..... is he good, absolutely, he wouldn't have been drafted, nor would have had a PPG career, but tell me, does he stop excelling when he goes pointless the next 3 games?

@Herby see this as far as how impressed I am after 29 pro hockey games.....

 

[Statto]

I recall the discussion on Byfield/Stutzle on reaching potential was that it would take Byfield longer because he needs to fill out his frame due to his style vs Stutzle. However Byfields size also made him more nhl ready than Stutzle.

There were a lot of discussions about Byfield being the next Mark Messier or Malkin type of player. Which sounds exciting but again, the Kings had a log jam of centers already then and even more so now. I’m not sure what the plan is in terms of development but maybe that will clear up by the trade deadline, who knows.

I was part of the discussion and what the I said was that playing in the DEL didn’t make him NHL ready and the playing against men argument was overstated. I personally didn’t have a view on who was more NHL ready, but thought both would need an extra year to mature. I looked at the Senator’s board earlier in the season and quite a few members felt Stutzle needed time in the minors and was playing too much on the perimeter. A definite feeling that they had rushed him. I’ve not seen enough of him myself to give s view.

 

[Schmooley]

I was part of the discussion and what the I said was that playing in the DEL didn’t make him NHL ready and the playing against men argument was overstated. I personally didn’t have a view on who was more NHL ready, but thought both would need an extra year to mature. I looked at the Senator’s board earlier in the season and quite a few members felt Stutzle needed time in the minors and was playing too much on the perimeter. A definite feeling that they had rushed him. I’ve not seen enough of him myself to give s view.

Youll hear his name a lot in a game but he isnt as effective as he could be. Hes going to be a great player.
A big thing for these young players is the situation they are coming into. Would Boldy be such a stud coming into a team like Ottawa? Maybe at first but once the season gets lost and losses pile up hed hit a wall just like Stutzle. Stutzle would be tearing it up on a team like Minnesota that is playing great and with confidence.

 

[KingsFan7824]

Who cares that Anderson and Bjornfot are good pros at a young age. It’s nice to see them be NHL players, that’s better than being a bust. But it doesn’t deserve high praise unless a player shows they have some special skill that makes them an impact player.

So far they’ve shown no ability to contribute on offense. And it’s unlikely they ever will. On defense neither is going to grow significantly, so they’ll never be towers on the blue line. They’ll never be pylons either, both guys are smart, agile players.

So projecting down the road, if they’re in your top four, the other two defenseman are responsible for 98% of the production. Some may say that Bjornfot has those offensive skills to be that #3 D who can put up 5g, 15pts, but he hasn’t even hinted at those skills to date. I’ve seen him try to rush the puck a couple of times, but his most lasting impression is consistently making a 10 foot pass to his D partner behind the net.

If you’re waiting for someone to show some kind of breakout night after night and it isn’t happening unless you’re a 24 year old future journeyman, it’s a sign that maybe there’s mostly a bunch of low ceiling kids playing inflated minutes with no payoff coming.

And if a player has special skill, can you give credit to anyone drafting him? Unless the guy was a 5th rd pick, and at that point, it's more well I guess we'll take this long shot instead of the other one, it's not the world's most difficult job to see special skill. And you can't teach the actual skill, and you can't take it away either. Nor can you can't play the skill out of anyone. So if Kaliyev is stating his career on a line with Lizotte, that doesn't mean he won't score 30 a couple times in the years ahead.

I would agree though that unless the Kings have someone with that "it" factor, then they simply won't be a true contender for anything. That's just the life of sports. They might build a playoff team, maybe even a team that can make a run to the Final once, but not one that can actually win. They could build a 2014 Rangers team, or a 2012 Devils team, that kind of thing.

As we now know, even the Kings were lucky to have won. A team built around Kopitar, Brown, and Doughty can't win. They don't elevate anyone. You have to bring in your Williams, your Penner, your Richards, make a completely unscheduled coaching change, your Carter, get the best version of Dwight King possible, and then maybe you can do something.

Not that the Oilers have, or will, win with the clear as a day special talents they have. You also need a team around them. Which is how the Kings won. However, the Oilers, as long as they have those two guys, will continue to be closer to a Cup than the Kings are, assuming the talent the Kings have drafted isn't quite elite enough. And yes, that kind talent does tend to reveal itself early. That's the sort of talent that breaks coaches, and forces them to play young guys as soon as they can. Because most coaches will not do so with most young guys.

 

[Herby]

The prospects are the only thing we've had to get excited about and a good portion of them must pan out and/or get dealt for proven talent or else this whole tank job is for naught. I'm not tossing the entire prospect pool in the garbage but it is 100% fair to say that the bloom is off the rose at this point for several of these guys and nobody should be given grief if they say so. The excuses are there but it doesn't change the fact that the results are what they are. Long way to go to declare booms/busts and whatnot but some on here have real short memories when it comes to having a top ranked prospect pool and what that actually means but, shit, players drafted after Turcotte and Byfield could be better players now and possibly in the future and that is okay.

I feel like it gets ignored every time I say it but Lombardi had a Top 5 pool for 3-4 years with Doughty only counting towards the ranking once. Thing was anchored by Thomas Hickey, Bernier, Purcell, Teubert, Moller etc. Draft position informs these rankings so much but the actual results the further away you get from the draft matter more than say Lias Andersson being a 7th overall pick. We are going to see busts relative to their draft position but, hopefully, we will see some booms as well. Byfield MUST be elite or this thing is f***ed. Lombardi's pool turned out good players but we'd still be without a Cup if he takes Bogosian or anyone else with the Doughty pick.

Players develop at different paces so I'm not saying that all is lost; however, none of the Kings prospects have hit NHL ice and immediately looked like a problem for the rest of the league like Kopitar and Doughty did. That is elite, HHOF caliber stuff so it is special: I get it. Just saying though that it took two of those type of players plus an army of other talent to win those Cups. Call me negative but I am pretty concerned that these types of players are not currently in the pool. It isn't wrong to expect more production out of Turcotte or for him to stay healthy. Byfield has excuses as well but that's the problem: he got drafted and then basically sat on his ass until the WJC and then has barely played this season. This is prime development time and it keeps getting delayed. It's not his fault but that doesn't matter: what matter is it is happening. There is a lot of taking for granted that these guys will all just be studs but Vilardi missing all that development time is a problem. Turcotte in a shaky Wisconsin situation and then an injury-marred, shortened AHL campaign isn't cool. Byfield pretty much not playing until late December? Not good, Bob!

I don't know. I'm just so prepared to be let down since I've been let down by so many Kings prospects dating back to, I don't know, Pavel Rosa? Storr? Aki? When things don't go as expected early on and you are three or four seasons removed from the draft year, well, it is 100% reasonable to be worried: especially if the prospect in question was supposed to be one of the very best of his draft class.

If people want to come up with excuses or minimize production in D+1 and D+2 that is up to them. I just wish we were talking about dominating play by certain prospects rather than making excuses for why what should be our 2 top prospects have kind of stagnated since we drafted them. Like you said, is it to much to ask for another Doughty or Kopitar where you just knew right away?

I just don't get how people can continually make the comments that (Insert star young player) would be playing in Ontario when it has zero basis in reality. This is a GM that has had four different players under 20 play in the NHL the last few years. The Kings let Bjornfot play in the NHL at 18, 19 and 20 but wouldn't give a look to two of the best young players in the league who happen to be 19 and 20?

I don't know what the problem is with the Kings inability to develop a 1st line forward. I think a lot of it is poor choices, why can't we just do what is the norm in developing players. Most teams would have had QB in the NHL at 18, the Kings had him in the AHL but had said they were sending him back to the OHL had the AHL option not been there. There is a reason why most Top 2 picks don't return to junior, QB should have been in the NHL last year getting comfortable and adjusting to the culture shock and speed of the game. Turcotte also went against the norms of how players of his caliber are normally handled. Can anyone sit here and honestly say that Turcotte's offensive game grew from playing in the AHL as a teenager? The guy needed to dominate as a sophomore to take the next step offensively and could have used a season in the weight room to be better prepared to play pro. He got neither and that is unfortunate.

I think that we are beyond the point where there should be overhauls in both the evaluation aspect and the development aspect. I don't need anymore rah rah big talk interviews from Yannetti, I need to start seeing some impact players at the NHL level. Not the OHL, not the World Jrs, the NHL.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

If people want to come up with excuses or minimize production in D+1 and D+2 that is up to them. I just wish we were talking about dominating play by certain prospects rather than making excuses for why what should be our 2 top prospects have kind of stagnated since we drafted them. Like you said, is it to much to ask for another Doughty or Kopitar where you just knew right away?

It's kind of hard to dominate when you're literally f***ing not playing due to injury.

If you want to call that an 'excuse' I'll just...agree to disagree to put it nicely.

 

[cyclones22]

It's kind of hard to dominate when you're literally f***ing not playing due to injury.

If you want to call that an 'excuse' I'll just...agree to disagree to put it nicely.

No kidding. Byfield had a very good rookie season in the AHL last season. And now he stagnating? Give me a break. You can also anoint players too soon. Whatever happened to our Lord and savior Cole Caufield? I seem to remember some people on this board were very high on him. And how returning to Wisconsin for more development was part of the reason why he was so great out of the gate.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

If people want to come up with excuses or minimize production in D+1 and D+2 that is up to them. I just wish we were talking about dominating play by certain prospects rather than making excuses for why what should be our 2 top prospects have kind of stagnated since we drafted them. Like you said, is it to much to ask for another Doughty or Kopitar where you just knew right away?

I just don't get how people can continually make the comments that (Insert star young player) would be playing in Ontario when it has zero basis in reality. This is a GM that has had four different players under 20 play in the NHL the last few years. The Kings let Bjornfot play in the NHL at 18, 19 and 20 but wouldn't give a look to two of the best young players in the league who happen to be 19 and 20?

I don't know what the problem is with the Kings inability to develop a 1st line forward. I think a lot of it is poor choices, why can't we just do what is the norm in developing players. Most teams would have had QB in the NHL at 18, the Kings had him in the AHL but had said they were sending him back to the OHL had the AHL option not been there. There is a reason why most Top 2 picks don't return to junior, QB should have been in the NHL last year getting comfortable and adjusting to the culture shock and speed of the game. Turcotte also went against the norms of how players of his caliber are normally handled. Can anyone sit here and honestly say that Turcotte's offensive game grew from playing in the AHL as a teenager? The guy needed to dominate as a sophomore to take the next step offensively and could have used a season in the weight room to be better prepared to play pro. He got neither and that is unfortunate.

I think that we are beyond the point where there should be overhauls in both the evaluation aspect and the development aspect. I don't need anymore rah rah big talk interviews from Yannetti, I need to start seeing some impact players at the NHL level. Not the OHL, not the World Jrs, the NHL.

This is pretty much though, player specific, you have McDavid, Matthews, Barkov etc, but then you have Hischier, Patrick etc....by all accounts Byfield was NOT NHL ready....and you couldn't play him in the A at the time....so what is your option, rush him? Or let him get ready ie, rounding into frame, etc.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

No kidding. Byfield had a very good rookie season in the AHL last season. And now he stagnating? Give me a break. You can also anoint players too soon. Whatever happened to our Lord and savior Cole Caufield? I seem to remember some people on this board were very high on him. And how returning to Wisconsin for more development was part of the reason why he was so great out of the gate.

Yeah weird how the Caufield pumping suddenly stopped eh

But anyway I have a friend who broke both legs and is wheelchair bound for about 6 months and he is just NOT dominating at work lately

 

[Choralone]

Yeah weird how the Caufield pumping suddenly stopped eh

But anyway I have a friend who broke both legs and is wheelchair bound for about 6 months and he is just NOT dominating at work lately

What a f***ing bust. If only your office had hired that guy with rickets instead.

 

[Bandit]

Yeah weird how the Caufield pumping suddenly stopped eh

But anyway I have a friend who broke both legs and is wheelchair bound for about 6 months and he is just NOT dominating at work lately

He’s not crushing it 110%? Weird.