Frolov 6'3
Unregistered User
Too bad Teubert didn’t turn into anything but Cammy was traded for cheap.
That pissed me off back than.
That pissed me off back than.
2022 Draft Discussion (after the trade)
- Thread starter King'sPawn
- Start date
-
Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Would be a good pickup but it's likely he's gone by 19. He's moving up boards with the playoffs that he's having. Won't be surprised if the Ducks or Sharks take him but at worst he ends up in Buffalo at 16. That's my guess.
On the flipside of that, it means someone else drops lower than anticipated...
Herby
How could Blake have known?
The issue here is there are very rarely “bad picks” if you just fall back to the rankings arguments.
Dave Taylor lost his job mostly because he failed to draft and develop his high draft picks, but none of his draft picks were reaches, on the contrary, Taylor usually defaulted to taking the highest ranked guy left on the board. Does that mean we can’t consider Jens Karlsson, Jeff Tambellini and Lauri Tukonen to be bad picks? I mean, they all went where they were projected to go, right?
To me you should be judged on drafts by how good the players you end up with. Drafting (like most sports in general) is the ultimate results oriented business. If you take a guy at #5 who is projected to go at #5 and he’s a superstar you deserve credit for the pick, on the flip side if you take a guy #5 and he ends up being a depth player you deserve blame. I feel like for many here had Turcotte done what Zegras has done the attitude would have been to give Blake all the credit for the pick and not say “well he was just going off the rankings” but since it has not gone as plan the attitude is now “well he just went off the rankings”
It is clear as day that in both 2017 and 2019 with pretty high picks the Kings took players who have not matched the level of play of players taken after them in those drafts. Whether it is evaluation or post draft development (or a combo of both). Those picks are tough to look at when you see what other teams are getting from their guys taken later.
Dave Taylor lost his job mostly because he failed to draft and develop his high draft picks, but none of his draft picks were reaches, on the contrary, Taylor usually defaulted to taking the highest ranked guy left on the board. Does that mean we can’t consider Jens Karlsson, Jeff Tambellini and Lauri Tukonen to be bad picks? I mean, they all went where they were projected to go, right?
To me you should be judged on drafts by how good the players you end up with. Drafting (like most sports in general) is the ultimate results oriented business. If you take a guy at #5 who is projected to go at #5 and he’s a superstar you deserve credit for the pick, on the flip side if you take a guy #5 and he ends up being a depth player you deserve blame. I feel like for many here had Turcotte done what Zegras has done the attitude would have been to give Blake all the credit for the pick and not say “well he was just going off the rankings” but since it has not gone as plan the attitude is now “well he just went off the rankings”
It is clear as day that in both 2017 and 2019 with pretty high picks the Kings took players who have not matched the level of play of players taken after them in those drafts. Whether it is evaluation or post draft development (or a combo of both). Those picks are tough to look at when you see what other teams are getting from their guys taken later.
Raccoon Jesus
We were right there
Disagree. It's pretty clear around here--and I can think of four or five posters who will agree with this--that Blake "doing what he's supposed to do" is largely met with "well, that's the easy part." It doesn't take crazy balls or skill to take the consensus ranking guy. if Byfield, Turcotte pan out, he just did what he's supposed to. If they don't, we can criticise, but the exercise was to show that even the gold standards had turcotte ranked HIGHER than he was, so it's not like Blake made an off-the-wall pick, he just missed on it. Now if that happens repeatedly? It's an issue. But the flip side of that is the DL Hickey pick. If he would have picked Voracek, fine. But he picked an off the board pick AND missed so of course he gets slammed for it where Yzerman gets some major credit for Seider. Can you imagine if Blake picked Broberg or something? It's a different conversation. I don't think that's controversial, is it? It might be to you because Turcotte is involved, but maybe remove that name and evaluate...
Now I think the Kings have demonstrated outside the first that they do deserve some credit for creativity and zeroing in on their guys as evidenced with kaliyev, moves for Faber, deep round pick success, and the like.
Lt Dan
F*** your ice cream!
Herby
How could Blake have known?
Well we don't know if the "that is what he was supposed to do" thing would be said by some here, because we just have not had Blake hit on any of his 1st round draft picks since he became GM. Maybe you are right and that would be the attitude by some here, but right now that is just a guess because we have nothing to go off of. We do know that his selections that have not turned out well have been largely excused as "well he just did what the rankings said", that can't be disputed, there are multiple people making that same argument here right now, specifically about Turcotte and Vilardi. I don't care either way, but just be consistent with the takes, if Byfield explodes next year and Vilardi and Turcotte continue to struggle the attitude should be "Byfield was a great pick, Turcotte and Vilardi were not" no context or excuses. No "Byfield was a #2 pick, it was an easy pick" or no "Turcotte and Vilardi were taken where they were supposed to, they can't be bad picks". Like I said in my earlier post, other than a few rare exceptions like Thomas Hickey, almost every bust taken high in the draft was drafted where they were expected to go, so by using the logic some are using here, only a select few busts like Hickey can actually be considered bad picks. Some of the worst picks in team history like Teubert, Berg, Storr, Tukonen were all drafted where they were projected, so we can't call them bad picks?
I don't know why you continue to act like I have some mass hatred for Turcotte. You have the same projection for Turcotte today that I had 2.5 years ago after seeing him play in person multiple times, but I am still the one that was unfair and a "hater" in my opinions on him? I would think someone who projected him as the next Jonathan Toews and said on this forum a year ago that he wouldn't trade him for Zegras, Seider or Caufield has the outlier opinion and can't talk rationally, but no, apparently it's me.
Blake hasn't made any off the wall first round picks, but we are now at multiple drafts (2017 & 2019) where the Kings clearly did not pick the right player. I won't include QB on that list quite yet because this is a big year for him, but no way Ottawa or Detroit would trade who they took for QB at this point. I don't think anyone here would turn down TS or Raymond for QB. But again lets give QB one more year and see how he looks next year.
And yes, no debate the Kings are amazing drafting outside the first round. I said on this board a couple of weeks ago a case can be made that the Kings are the best drafting team in the NHL outside round 1 under Blake and the worst in the league in round 1. I don't think that is hyperbole when you factor in NHL/Professional play for all those guys. And it can be looked at as both a positive and a negative. On the positive side, it should be easier to be able to fix the first round mistakes than it would be to be able to adjust the evaluation to pull multiple NHL'ers out of the later rounds. But on the negative side, a rebuild is not going to be successful without hitting on first round picks. And that is the biggest problem with the Kings rebuild and why it's laughable to call it "perfect" like that article did. If you are getting this little so far from a #2, #5 and #11 pick it's just ridiculous to say anyone executed a perfect rebuild.
Rank the rebuilds going into next season. Who has more U-24 talent.
LA
Ottawa
Anaheim
Montreal
Detroit
If all the top picks look like busts and they churn out the picks in later rounds into solid depth players it may be a development issue and not a drafting issue. Top five picks usually get a chance to play and are usually given top six spots. Whether or not they drop down the lineup is depending on how they play. Byfield and Turcotte have not been given that opportunity and have not been put with the teams best wingers. Lizotte didnt look so hot in the playoffs next to AA and Brown either and he was great all year. The development staff needs to get more creative in catering to individual skill rather than a one size fits all two way game. And at the NHL level they have to stop catering to the veterans and throw some of the kids into the fire.
cyclones22
Registered User
It's 100% a development issue. Obviously, if Yannetti is getting an extension, then Blake must agree he's selecting the "right" players. Development and coaching staffs need to be called on the carpet if this continues for lack of or slow development with forwards. I have zero qualms with defensemen development and goaltending for the most part, even though Petersen took a big step back. Historically the Kings have been good for those 2 position groups.
All The Kings Men
Registered User
- Apr 7, 2016
- 2,366
- 5,629
McDonalds makes better cheeseburgers than Del Taco but Del Taco makes a way better burrito.
Clearly McDonalds burrito coaches are terrible at their job OR the person who shops for their burrito ingredients is bad at their job.
There is simply no other explanation as to why McDonalds can't make a decent burrito.
None. Impossible. It's one of those two options and nothing else.
Clearly McDonalds burrito coaches are terrible at their job OR the person who shops for their burrito ingredients is bad at their job.
There is simply no other explanation as to why McDonalds can't make a decent burrito.
None. Impossible. It's one of those two options and nothing else.
Durzi and Spence were thrown into the fire and performed. At one point Bjornfot and Anderson were playing as a pair and looked really good. If veterans on defense had not gotten hurt wed be complaining about the defense draft picks as much as we are about the offense draft picks. Clarke hasnt sniffed the NHL ice yet and this year still has Walker and Roy in front of him for second pair duties. Do you think they make room for him or send him back to the OHL?
Peter James Bond II
"Man, we were right there" - De-Luc-sional
- Mar 5, 2015
- 3,682
- 5,520
I don't think you can call any draft pick a 'bust' these days, until after their D + 4 year.
There are several good NHL players that took 4 to 5 years to unbust ::
Troy Terry, Adrian Kempe, Filip Chytil, Valeri Nichuskin...and others.
One could call Trevor Lewis a bust? Or just an underperformer, for being #17 overall.
He's been successful, but still at 81 career goals. So, there's bust and then underperforming.
There are several good NHL players that took 4 to 5 years to unbust ::
Troy Terry, Adrian Kempe, Filip Chytil, Valeri Nichuskin...and others.
One could call Trevor Lewis a bust? Or just an underperformer, for being #17 overall.
He's been successful, but still at 81 career goals. So, there's bust and then underperforming.
All The Kings Men
Registered User
- Apr 7, 2016
- 2,366
- 5,629
Only if you measure performance exclusively by points.
If the Kings could be guaranteed another Trevor Lewis at 19 this year I'd HAPPILY take it.
Herby
How could Blake have known?
I think development is obviously an issue. Turcotte and Byfield in the AHL as teenagers was as bad as it gets with development choices (and probably did permanent damage to be honest).
But there are certainly some evaluation issues here as well, Turcottte had no time in the Kings system (other than a development camp) before Wisconsin and looked underwhelming as an NCAA freshman for a player taken that high. So it's hard to blame that part on the Kings poor development choices, although they certainly compounded it in. the spring of 2020.
Since 2017 here are the guys taken from the NTDP/NCAA in the Top 10.
Cale Makar
Casey Mittlestadt
Brady Tkachuk
Quinn Hughes
Jack Hughes
Alex Turcotte
Trevor Zegras
Jake Sanderson
Owen Power
Matty Beniers
Luke Hughes
Kent Johnson
Tyler Boucher
That list has a lot of really good players on it, so that should be the expectation when taking an NTDP/NCAA player that high, tough to say the Kings were going to get that type of player, even if the development had been better.
As far as 2017, I think that may have been the Kings misjudging the direction the league was going. Players who skate like Vilardi are just at a huge disadvantage with the way the league is currently going. The skill is unquestionable but a player without any kind of intangibles beyond offense who skates that poorly is fighting an uphill battle in the current NHL. And unfortunately that has been the case with Vilardi.
This is fair, to not throw that label at anyone until D+4. But we have people on this board who won't call Vilardi even a disappointment even though he is an AHL/NHL tweener after his D+5.
If Turcotte doesn't establish himself as an NHL'er this season he is fighting an uphill battle to ever be anything more than a depth player. The list of Top 10 picks who aren't NHL regulars by their D+4 is a graveyard, so this is a do or die type year for him.
The reality is that for every Terry or Kempe you list there are a dozen players who never recover from early disappointment. Most players who are disappointments in their early 20's end up being disappointments, not all, as the ones you listed, but those are outliers.
When you are evaluating offensive players taken in the Top half of the draft it is fair to use points as an evaluation tool. If those players were scoring a lot we would be using points as an evaluation tool, so why can't we if they aren't scoring?
Lewis with this years pick, #19 in a below average draft would be fine. Lewis in the Top 8 of a strong draft is not a good pick.
But there are certainly some evaluation issues here as well, Turcottte had no time in the Kings system (other than a development camp) before Wisconsin and looked underwhelming as an NCAA freshman for a player taken that high. So it's hard to blame that part on the Kings poor development choices, although they certainly compounded it in. the spring of 2020.
Since 2017 here are the guys taken from the NTDP/NCAA in the Top 10.
Cale Makar
Casey Mittlestadt
Brady Tkachuk
Quinn Hughes
Jack Hughes
Alex Turcotte
Trevor Zegras
Jake Sanderson
Owen Power
Matty Beniers
Luke Hughes
Kent Johnson
Tyler Boucher
That list has a lot of really good players on it, so that should be the expectation when taking an NTDP/NCAA player that high, tough to say the Kings were going to get that type of player, even if the development had been better.
As far as 2017, I think that may have been the Kings misjudging the direction the league was going. Players who skate like Vilardi are just at a huge disadvantage with the way the league is currently going. The skill is unquestionable but a player without any kind of intangibles beyond offense who skates that poorly is fighting an uphill battle in the current NHL. And unfortunately that has been the case with Vilardi.
This is fair, to not throw that label at anyone until D+4. But we have people on this board who won't call Vilardi even a disappointment even though he is an AHL/NHL tweener after his D+5.
If Turcotte doesn't establish himself as an NHL'er this season he is fighting an uphill battle to ever be anything more than a depth player. The list of Top 10 picks who aren't NHL regulars by their D+4 is a graveyard, so this is a do or die type year for him.
The reality is that for every Terry or Kempe you list there are a dozen players who never recover from early disappointment. Most players who are disappointments in their early 20's end up being disappointments, not all, as the ones you listed, but those are outliers.
When you are evaluating offensive players taken in the Top half of the draft it is fair to use points as an evaluation tool. If those players were scoring a lot we would be using points as an evaluation tool, so why can't we if they aren't scoring?
Lewis with this years pick, #19 in a below average draft would be fine. Lewis in the Top 8 of a strong draft is not a good pick.
Last edited:
cyclones22
Registered User
I agree and it's quite possible that those defenders don't get the shot they did without TMc not being given a choice. However, the Kings have a history of having Doughty be the training wheels for young defenders throughout his career once they moved Scuderi and Mitchell off his pairing. Anyway, I'm not sure Blake has it in him to Billy Beane the roster to make sure his guys (his draft choices) get the right opportunities. How many bridge players is he going to sign? If you buy that bridge, TMc is going to use it.
Raccoon Jesus
We were right there
I'm also not as quick to label people busts, I guess. The 2019s and sooner it's WAY too early.
RE: Vilardi, he's what went on around him:
As much as we complain about Gabe, DESPITE his development and back issues, he's got a better PPG than everyone in front of him by a significant amount all the way up to Pettersson at #5, and though Suzuki is awesome, there's not a lot there to suggest 'bad pick' let alone 'bust.' There was a run of great players later in the round, including Norris, Thomas, Yamamoto, Chytil, but they didn't start emerging until about now, either.
The "should have taken X" exercise can be done by any team in the league and imo that by itself a pretty shallow way to evaluate drafting.
RE: Vilardi, he's what went on around him:
As much as we complain about Gabe, DESPITE his development and back issues, he's got a better PPG than everyone in front of him by a significant amount all the way up to Pettersson at #5, and though Suzuki is awesome, there's not a lot there to suggest 'bad pick' let alone 'bust.' There was a run of great players later in the round, including Norris, Thomas, Yamamoto, Chytil, but they didn't start emerging until about now, either.
The "should have taken X" exercise can be done by any team in the league and imo that by itself a pretty shallow way to evaluate drafting.
Attachments
King'sPawn
Enjoy the chaos
- Jul 1, 2003
- 23,192
- 24,102
This is an absurd comparison, and you know it.
Let's say there are 32 burger joints. All have access to similar ingredients over the course of, say, 12 years.
Some habitually make better burgers than others.
Some make average burgers. You never want to spit out the burgers, but you find yourself wishing you ordered elsewhere every once in a while.
Some make burgers you want to spit out.
The Kings are in the middle. They always churn out NHL caliber talent, but almost never make the best burgers, despite sometimes having access to better ingredients (higher picks).
Why? Is someone picking the wrong ingredients or are they cooking the burgers wrong? How can the person cooking the burgers be blamed if they're getting shit ingredients? How can the person getting ingredients be blamed if the cook is using a heat lamp?
Unless you're insinuating that McDonald's doesn't care about making a good burrito. Then fine. But I'll never want to go to McDonald's until they care about product quality from top to bottom.
Raccoon Jesus
We were right there
King'sPawn
Enjoy the chaos
- Jul 1, 2003
- 23,192
- 24,102
Vilardi had unforeseeable injuries which had him unable to play for a couple years. I think he deserves leeway there.
If you want to call the pick disappointing, because there's yet to be an NHLer established, then I can't disagree. But I'd argue you are using a very narrow-minded or stubborn stance if you don't think there's any leeway for special circumstances.
If he plateaued for 5 straight years, I'd be right with you. But he has earned more time due to extenuating circumstances.
Herby
How could Blake have known?
Is his skating ever going to get above the level he is at right now? If it doesn't it's just hard to ever see him being an NHL player. He can't do anything else other than be an offensive player, he doesn't play defense, doesn't add physicality, doesn't kill penalties. He needs to create offense and he hasn't been able to do it at the NHL level.
You can say it's unfair, but the rules are set-up where if a player isn't established as an NHL player by the age that Vilardi and JAD are the odds of them being NHL players for anyone is low, and even lower for the team who drafted them.
The Kings gave Gabe the entire 20-21 season to show them something, they responded by signing Danault to a long-term contract, drafting another center and sending Gabe to the minors. It might not be fair, but the writing is clearly on the wall. Maybe he gets another chance and shines with another team, but it's painfully obvious the Kings are about ready to throw in the towel.
All The Kings Men
Registered User
- Apr 7, 2016
- 2,366
- 5,629
It's an absurd comparison because it's mocking what I believe is an absurdly simplistic approach to looking at the world.
Raccoon Jesus
We were right there
it's not so much that it's unfair as it is that you speak in absolutes. You're very big on the "if he's not X by D+X" and if you were merely talking probabilities it would be easier to handle but your philosophy on when players enter bustland would find guys like Blake Wheeler and Brad Marchand traded before they broke out.
I guess to your credit you're at least giving Byfield his last teenage offseason before proclaiming him part of that crowd but man are you harsh on guys who just don't jump quickly.
Herby
How could Blake have known?
Maybe I am confused, but if the struggles with forwards is not evaluation and it's not development then what is it?
Looking at a hockey club and comparing it to the world is absurd.
In hockey there are players drafted into the system. They make the roster or they dont. If none of the players drafted can make the roster outside of being a depth player then they are either drafting the wrong players or developing the high end talent wrong.
What could be the other reason?
Herby
How could Blake have known?
Just playing the numbers. The vast majority of players taken that high who are not NHL regulars by this age do not ever make it, is that a fair statement?
But instead you choose to focus on the small percentage who define the odds. For every 1 Blake Wheeler I can give you a dozen Michael Del Colle's, but yes, lets pretend all the Kings prospects are going to defy the odds and be Blake Wheeler.
You would probably want nothing to do with Nolan Patrick, Michael Rasmussen, Casey Middlestadt, Owen Tippett, Ryan Phoeling, right? And who could blame you, they have all been disappointments with little chance of salvaging their careers, but Gabe is different?
What are we supposed to take from the actions of the Kings with Gabe since the end of the 20-21 season, are those the actions of an organization that thinks he still has a future in the organization?
