2022 Draft Discussion (after the trade)

[Schrute farms]

I disagree with the failures of the Kings 1st round picks since Blake took over. Now you could claim some might be doing even better now. That's arguable -- especially considering it's so early and these guys careers are just starting. But not all 1st round picks make it. sure top 5 is an issue and they should (not always). But the middle/back 1st rounders -- come on with expecting stars and so early in their careers.

Vilardi -- NHLer already and proven he can be a decent player at least. He should get some leeway considering the injuries and lack of chances. He's not a bust though. He's a valid NHLer. That's decent for where he was picked. Lots of upside there though. He was always a high risk, high reward type pick.

Kupari -- got his chance last year and did well. He's shown he can at least be a serviceable bottom line NHLer....with potential for sooo much more. I'm not sure what more you can ask for realistically at #20.

Turcotte -- yes, fail so far. But that's solely due to injuries. That "S" happens. Not much you can do about it. Time in on his side though, so the book here isn't written.

Bjornfot -- establish NHLer at #22 with over 100 games three years in. Yeah, i'd say that's a very successful pick.

Byfield -- #2 pick we likely expect more and probably unfairly to him considering he's a freaking baby in years. But he's already shown he's a viable NHL player. No bust here. Question remains will he reach his ceiling. time will tell. For now, it's too early. But at least he's made it as an NHL player.

Clarke -- this seems like a homerun pick. We'll likely find out soon. But looks fantastic so far.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

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?

It's absolutely a fair statement and I think that's about the max you'll negotiate on so maybe we should stop there, but the reason you and I have so much friction about it is you draw a hard line there and don't allow for context. i.e. Vilardi ISNT Middlestadt or Poehling because he's lost a lot of development time to the back injury and being out of hockey for about a year and a half. Why would you draw a hard and fast rule on his development, and "I have to see x by x or else?" There's a difference between a guy with 100% health and opportunity and a guy with half of his development time wiped and a team glass ceiling on opportunity. Re: organizational actions since 20-21, yeah, they sent him down to play winger, if they didn't think he had a future wouldn't they leave him C and try to move him for another change of scenery prospect? To me those actions are pretty consistent with development investment even if they apparently suck at it.

Turcotte--ability aside--may end up like Nolan Patrick, a 'shit happens' pick with respect to injuries. But, like Gabe, why hamstring your expectations without giving him some leeway with actual playing time?

Byfield--I mean I've got not much to say here other than you're going hard at a teenager so whatever.

It's not pretending all the Kings' prospects are going to defy the odds, it's having patience and having comfort with context. You refuse, and play the hardline pessimist that NONE of them are going to pan out because they didn't develop exactly like some other 11th overall pick. That's fine, we'll disagree, but you can't be surprised when someone suddenly goes full Filip Chytil.

 

[King'sPawn]

It's an absurd comparison because it's mocking what I believe is an absurdly simplistic approach to looking at the world.

There is a symptom at this point and there are two root syetems/processes which work together: drafting and developing. You can make whatever remarks you want, but there is at least one flaw in one of those.

Scouting related potential causes:
- deployment of resources to scout (including time)
- biases
- improper tools to improve results
- faulty criteria to evaluate prospect viability
- bad scouts
- bad internal communications
- conflicting focus (players picked don't work well within the system)

Development related potential causes:
- skill focus (how much time is spent improving fundamentals)
- empowerment (are prospects adequately challenged to thrive)
- flexibility (how much do they deviate from a base plan to accommodate different players)
- bad coaches
- system which isn't conducive to the development plan

Ultimately, there is at least a problem somewhere. The reason why drafting isn't focused on as much is because, AGAIN, the Kings churn out NHLers, but we're not seeing results from the forwards. These forwards, through juniors, have very good careers. Even Mike Amadio got 50 goals on the most defensive team.

So, you can mock us for being "overly simplistic" all you want. Unfortunately, you fail to recognize that WE KNOW both branches are complex. But it comes back to:
- how can we hold development accountable if they're getting bad players brought in?
- how can we hold drafting accountable if the quality players they bring in are misused?

Keep spouting excuses and pretending like us dumb folk don't know what we're talking about though.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

There is a symptom at this point and there are two root syetems/processes which work together: drafting and developing. You can make whatever remarks you want, but there is at least one flaw in one of those.

Scouting related potential causes:
- deployment of resources to scout (including time)
- biases
- improper tools to improve results
- faulty criteria to evaluate prospect viability
- bad scouts
- bad internal communications
- conflicting focus (players picked don't work well within the system)

Development related potential causes:
- skill focus (how much time is spent improving fundamentals)
- empowerment (are prospects adequately challenged to thrive)
- flexibility (how much do they deviate from a base plan to accommodate different players)
- bad coaches
- system which isn't conducive to the development plan

Ultimately, there is at least a problem somewhere. The reason why drafting isn't focused on as much is because, AGAIN, the Kings churn out NHLers, but we're not seeing results from the forwards. These forwards, through juniors, have very good careers. Even Mike Amadio got 50 goals on the most defensive team.

So, you can mock us for being "overly simplistic" all you want. Unfortunately, you fail to recognize that WE KNOW both branches are complex. But it comes back to:
- how can we hold development accountable if they're getting bad players brought in?
- how can we hold drafting accountable if the quality players they bring in are misused?

Keep spouting excuses and pretending like us dumb folk don't know what we're talking about though.

I mean ultimately it comes down to this is a message board and each post isn't a self-containing article, it's fair to assume that other posters have seen your past thoughts on development and that you don't need a disclaimer of all of the above on each post since it's an ongoing conversation. This is the 2nd or 3rd time in the last month Jesse has done this and I'm not sure his expectations are commensurately fair with the medium given he keeps snapshotting moments in time with no context to poke fun at...but I agree it's starting to look less like poking fun and more like outright mockery. He's tech saavy and a smart dude WRT the internet, he knows how discussion boards work.

 

[King'sPawn]

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.

I'll try to answer these point-by-point:
- Will his skating ever get better? He might not have better mechanics, but for the next few years I still expect him to be stronger all around, including on his feet. He won't ever be a speedster, but he doesn't need to be.
- He has several tools where there's still hope of him being an NHL player, though. He thinks the game very quickly. He uses his body and hands well to protect the puck. Very good passing placement with a quick release. These are the things I see despite the numbers.
- I disagree that the "rules are set up" the way you say they are. What you observe is a by-product of rules, but the Kings could literally sign him and he continues his career in an Alexei Ponikarovsky type of role on the bottom-six.
- I'm sure the Kings are looking at options before parting ways, I don't disagree. I DO think their attempt to play him on the wing means they still hold out hope for him.

But ultimately it's an issue of semantics. You think he's disappointing. I think he was a good pick with shit luck/circumstances who deserves more leeway. And for my complaints about the Kings development, I don't hold Vilardi over their head as evidence.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

I see too much Corey Perry in Vilardi to give up on him now.

He's a unique quantity amongst kings prospects with his size, boards ability, and hands. We have plenty of fast, persistent guys, it's okay to have a slug or two if they serve a purpose.

I do agree he needs to produce to stay in the NHL.

 

[YP44]

I see too much Corey Perry in Vilardi to give up on him now.

He's a unique quantity amongst kings prospects with his size, boards ability, and hands. We have plenty of fast, persistent guys, it's okay to have a slug or two if they serve a purpose.

I do agree he needs to produce to stay in the NHL.

i agree I do not want to give up on him. Especially since he is a right shot forward who can take faceoffs, which for some reason LA has had issues finding.

I will say for the right player I would still be ok moving him though and do not think that is giving up on him

 

[Herby]

There is a symptom at this point and there are two root syetems/processes which work together: drafting and developing. You can make whatever remarks you want, but there is at least one flaw in one of those.

Scouting related potential causes:
- deployment of resources to scout (including time)
- biases
- improper tools to improve results
- faulty criteria to evaluate prospect viability
- bad scouts
- bad internal communications
- conflicting focus (players picked don't work well within the system)

Development related potential causes:
- skill focus (how much time is spent improving fundamentals)
- empowerment (are prospects adequately challenged to thrive)
- flexibility (how much do they deviate from a base plan to accommodate different players)
- bad coaches
- system which isn't conducive to the development plan

Ultimately, there is at least a problem somewhere. The reason why drafting isn't focused on as much is because, AGAIN, the Kings churn out NHLers, but we're not seeing results from the forwards. These forwards, through juniors, have very good careers. Even Mike Amadio got 50 goals on the most defensive team.

So, you can mock us for being "overly simplistic" all you want. Unfortunately, you fail to recognize that WE KNOW both branches are complex. But it comes back to:
- how can we hold development accountable if they're getting bad players brought in?
- how can we hold drafting accountable if the quality players they bring in are misused?

Keep spouting excuses and pretending like us dumb folk don't know what we're talking about though.

Yup, there is clearly a link in the chain that is broken that is preventing the Kings from developing draft picks into 1st or 2nd line players.

Evaluation - I know many here don’t put much stock into the theory that the evaluation is off. I think it’s a bigger problem than some may realize. Vilardi’s skating likely scared off alot of teams as he fell below where “experts” had him pegged. Is it fair to be critical of the Kings for not seeing that issue that other teams did? Did the Kings not place enough importance on skating? Did the Kings not believe his skating was bad? Did the Kings not realize how important skating and speed was going to be in the NHL this decade? All those things are problems with player evaluation.

With Turcotte, people think my opinions are biased but trust me, I am not the only person who was underwhelmed with his play in college. Go ask anyone who follows UW hockey or the Big Ten, it’s not a controversial take to say he didn’t live up to hype. You look at where other players from those leagues taken with similar picks have looked and it’s tough to not worry about evaluation. Between Q. Hughes, L. Hughes, Power, Beniers and Caufield I have been able to see a lot of high end players play a lot in person recently at that level and Turcotte was just not at the level of those guys. Was this the Kings making evaluation mistakes? Was is Turcotte having a flukey season at 17? Was it poor coaching in college? (Tough to say with how good Miller and Caufield look). It’s also fair to say that all those guys played 2 years and Turcotte didn’t (more on that later). I don’t know, and we never hear anything from the Kings other than Jim Fox’s interview where he said the team viewed him as a 3rd liner which if true would open up the debate about organizational philosophy with picks.

The QB evaluation, we will see. There was obvious much debate about which player to take. But if TS blows up this year and QB doesn’t it’s going to be another ding for evaluation of these players. This is the year QB has to make a move where we can see a glimmer of hope.

Development. I think this is more cut and dry, that it has been really bad and it’s hard to say otherwise. Blake’s obsession with signing these guys as teenagers and throwing them to his volleyball buddies to be molded into the LA Kings system while riding busses in the AHL has proven to be a disaster, especially for the upside of high end picks. Pulling Turcotte who was probably 175 lbs from school coming off a disappointing year and throwing him into the AHL was the single worst development move I’ve seen from the Kings since they had Storr between the pipes as a teenager for an awful team.

Byfield being in the AHL was a unique situation that is usually not available but after how lost QB was this year in D+2 it’s apparent he gained absolutely nothing from his time in the AHL and should have been in the NHL like the vast majority of picks that high. And I am not saying QB would have dominated the NHL at 18, but it’s obvious now he couldn’t have been less ready for this year had he been in the NHL, and it’s very likely he would have been more NHL ready both this past season and the upcoming season where the production of a #2 OA was going to be counted on at the NHL level.

Both Byfield and Turcotte were handled differently from most similar prospects, in my experiences in life you can try to do a job differently than the normal and proven paths but if you fail you deserve a lot of the blame and that is the spot we are in with Blake. Are we in this same spot with QB and Turcotte if QB had spent 20-21 in LA and Turcotte had spent 20-21 in Madison? My guess is both are further a long if that had been the case.

Kupari coming over to ride busses in the AHL was also a bit baffling. Why not just let him play and hopefully dominate in Finland? Can anyone here come up with reasons why the Kings are so enamored with their AHL affiliate as a place to develop teenagers? We never get any answers because no one in the media asks Blake why he is so much more AHL centric than other teams.

Either way, to say as he did that it’s neither evaluation or development is just crazy to me.

 

[Frolov 6'3]

I think LA will end up with Jagger Firkus.

Tyler Toffoli like.

 

[Schmooley]

Yup, there is clearly a link in the chain that is broken that is preventing the Kings from developing draft picks into 1st or 2nd line players.

Evaluation - I know many here don’t put much stock into the theory that the evaluation is off. I think it’s a bigger problem than some may realize. Vilardi’s skating likely scared off alot of teams as he fell below where “experts” had him pegged. Is it fair to be critical of the Kings for not seeing that issue that other teams did? Did the Kings not place enough importance on skating? Did the Kings not believe his skating was bad? Did the Kings not realize how important skating and speed was going to be in the NHL this decade? All those things are problems with player evaluation.

With Turcotte, people think my opinions are biased but trust me, I am not the only person who was underwhelmed with his play in college. Go ask anyone who follows UW hockey or the Big Ten, it’s not a controversial take to say he didn’t live up to hype. You look at where other players from those leagues taken with similar picks have looked and it’s tough to not worry about evaluation. Between Q. Hughes, L. Hughes, Power, Beniers and Caufield I have been able to see a lot of high end players play a lot in person recently at that level and Turcotte was just not at the level of those guys. Was this the Kings making evaluation mistakes? Was is Turcotte having a flukey season at 17? Was it poor coaching in college? (Tough to say with how good Miller and Caufield look). It’s also fair to say that all those guys played 2 years and Turcotte didn’t (more on that later). I don’t know, and we never hear anything from the Kings other than Jim Fox’s interview where he said the team viewed him as a 3rd liner which if true would open up the debate about organizational philosophy with picks.

The QB evaluation, we will see. There was obvious much debate about which player to take. But if TS blows up this year and QB doesn’t it’s going to be another ding for evaluation of these players. This is the year QB has to make a move where we can see a glimmer of hope.

Development. I think this is more cut and dry, that it has been really bad and it’s hard to say otherwise. Blake’s obsession with signing these guys as teenagers and throwing them to his volleyball buddies to be molded into the LA Kings system while riding busses in the AHL has proven to be a disaster, especially for the upside of high end picks. Pulling Turcotte who was probably 175 lbs from school coming off a disappointing year and throwing him into the AHL was the single worst development move I’ve seen from the Kings since they had Storr between the pipes as a teenager for an awful team.

Byfield being in the AHL was a unique situation that is usually not available but after how lost QB was this year in D+2 it’s apparent he gained absolutely nothing from his time in the AHL and should have been in the NHL like the vast majority of picks that high. And I am not saying QB would have dominated the NHL at 18, but it’s obvious now he couldn’t have been less ready for this year had he been in the NHL, and it’s very likely he would have been more NHL ready both this past season and the upcoming season where the production of a #2 OA was going to be counted on at the NHL level.

Both Byfield and Turcotte were handled differently from most similar prospects, in my experiences in life you can try to do a job differently than the normal and proven paths but if you fail you deserve a lot of the blame and that is the spot we are in with Blake. Are we in this same spot with QB and Turcotte if QB had spent 20-21 in LA and Turcotte had spent 20-21 in Madison? My guess is both are further a long if that had been the case.

Kupari coming over to ride busses in the AHL was also a bit baffling. Why not just let him play and hopefully dominate in Finland? Can anyone here come up with reasons why the Kings are so enamored with their AHL affiliate as a place to develop teenagers? We never get any answers because no one in the media asks Blake why he is so much more AHL centric than other teams.

Either way, to say as he did that it’s neither evaluation or development is just crazy to me.

Theres a lot of truth in this. Byfield should have been in the NHL with a long leash.
You think Turcotte should have been in college for another year and tried as 2c last year instead of bringing in Danault? I think that would have been a good plan for him.
Kupari should have been left to develop overseas. Instead of a finesse 3rd line center with size looks like we got a bottom six power forward that plays better on the wing but can win faceoffs. A lot that style he probably picked up playing in the AHL. Could end up working out for Kupari though. Maybe he can turn into a Josh Anderson type.

 

[Herby]

I think LA will end up with Jagger Firkus.

Tyler Toffoli like.

Perfect pick for LA. A skilled player locked into the WHL for his age 18 and 19 seasons. Can’t be stupidly rushed to the AHL as teenagers like Nazar or Mcgroarty could be if the Kings take them.

Let him dominate the WHL for 2 seasons and then maybe some AHL time before making the big club.

 

[All The Kings Men]

So, you can mock us for being "overly simplistic" all you want. Unfortunately, you fail to recognize that WE KNOW both branches are complex. But it comes back to:

- how can we hold development accountable if they're getting bad players brought in?
- how can we hold drafting accountable if the quality players they bring in are misused?

Keep spouting excuses and pretending like us dumb folk don't know what we're talking about though.

The reason I'm so dismissive is because I still don't get the sense that you've even tried to understand or in fact even acknowledge my critique. I've laid it out in other threads. I've listed players, draft years, free agent signings, trades... I've been pretty thorough in presenting what I think is an alternative C option to your A or B argument and I've never once felt like it was even acknowledged much less refuted.

I don't think you're dumb and I don't think you don't know what you're talking about. I think you and others you argue with are missing an explanation for something you consider to be a problem.

 

[Herby]

Theres a lot of truth in this. Byfield should have been in the NHL with a long leash.
You think Turcotte should have been in college for another year and tried as 2c last year instead of bringing in Danault? I think that would have been a good plan for him.
Kupari should have been left to develop overseas. Instead of a finesse 3rd line center with size looks like we got a bottom six power forward that plays better on the wing but can win faceoffs. A lot that style he probably picked up playing in the AHL. Could end up working out for Kupari though. Maybe he can turn into a Josh Anderson type.

Byfield would not have been expected to really do much in 20-21, it would have been just to get him used to the NHL pace and then make it easier for him to be productive this past season and this upcoming season. Imagine QB even at a 35 point pace this past season and how much better the team would have been. Now because of the lost season in the AHL at 18 we have a lost season in the NHL at 19 and a potentially weakened development. That is all on Rob Blake.

Anytime you draft an NCAA player I think the expectation should be 2 years in the NCAA unless the player is ready to immediately jump into the NHL like Eichel, Larkin etc. The Hughes brothers, McAvoy, Werenski, Power, Beniers, Caufield, Miller all played 2 years, why did the Kings think differently? People will blame the coaches at UW, but for the second straight post season we are seeing a player who played 2 years at Wisconsin making a difference on the biggest stage. Obviously the coaches there seem to know what their doing. Once again that is a development error and that is on Rob Blake.

To answer your question, that would have depended on what Turcotte did as a a sophomore, but yes I would have played all the youth this past year and this coming year. Danault was a great signing for what they decided to do, I just question if that decision gets them closer to a cup or not.

Play Byfield, Turcotte, Kaliyev etc a alot and they either step up and you realize you have the talent to eventually compete for a cup around 2025 or you suck and get really good picks this draft and more importantly the 2023 draft where there are multiple potential franchise players at the top of the draft and that is where you get your 1C. That is what I would have personally done, but obv that ship has sailed and I still continue to believe the Kings lack the high end pieces to compete for a SC anytime soon. They ended the rebuild prematurely to get 7 playoff games no one will remember.

 

[Schmooley]

Byfield would not have been expected to really do much in 20-21, it would have been just to get him used to the NHL pace and then make it easier for him to be productive this past season and this upcoming season. Imagine QB even at a 35 point pace this past season and how much better the team would have been. Now because of the lost season in the AHL at 18 we have a lost season in the NHL at 19 and a potentially weakened development. That is all on Rob Blake.

Anytime you draft an NCAA player I think the expectation should be 2 years in the NCAA unless the player is ready to immediately jump into the NHL like Eichel, Larkin etc. The Hughes brothers, McAvoy, Werenski, Power, Beniers, Caufield, Miller all played 2 years, why did the Kings thing differently? Once again that is development and that is on Rob Blake.

To answer your question, that would have depended on what Turcotte did as a a sophomore, but yes I would have played all the youth this past year and this coming year. Danault was a great signing for what they decided to do, I just question if that decision gets them closer to a cup or not.

Play Byfield, Turcotte, Kaliyev etc a alot and they either step up and you realize you have the talent to eventually compete for a cup around 2025 or you suck and get really good picks this draft and more importantly the 2023 draft where there are multiple potential franchise players at the top of the draft. That is what I would have personally done, but obv that ship has sailed and I still continue to believe the Kings lack the high end pieces to compete for a SC anytime soon.

I agree. I wonder if owners told Blake he needed to make the playoffs or he wont be extended. It would explain a lot of the moves hes made. He hasnt mortgaged the future but also hasnt really made it clear what the plan is to become a contender.

 

[Herby]

The reason I'm so dismissive is because I still don't get the sense that you've even tried to understand or in fact even acknowledge my critique. I've laid it out in other threads. I've listed players, draft years, free agent signings, trades... I've been pretty thorough in presenting what I think is an alternative C option to your A or B argument and I've never once felt like it was even acknowledged much less refuted.

I don't think you're dumb and I don't think you don't know what you're talking about. I think you and others you argue with are missing an explanation for something you consider to be a problem.

You don’t believe the results of recent high draft picks have been a problem?

What should the expectation be as far as NHL readiness in 2022-2023 for players taken #11 in 2017, #5 in 2019 and #2 in 2020?

 

[All The Kings Men]

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.

So who have the Kings taken in the 1st round and how far back are we really going?

Because right off the bat we're looking at a discrepancy in sample size.

1 round vs 6 rounds x however many years you're looking at. Less opportunity for the Kings to impress.

no first round picks in 2013, 2015, 2016
last pick in 2012 and 2014 (Pearson and Kempe)

2017 - Vilardi
2018 - Kupari
2019 - Turcotte/Bjornfot
2020 - Byfield
2021 - Clarke

We're talking about 6 players drafted in the last 5 years. 4 centers and 2 defenseman.

 

[All The Kings Men]

You don’t believe the results of recent high draft picks have been a problem?

What should the expectation be as far as NHL readiness in 2022-2023 for players taken #11 in 2017, #5 in 2019 and #2 in 2020?

I think we're talking about 4 guys and I think that each of them should be looked at as individuals and evaluated based on individual circumstance.

I'm not prepared to say anything definitive about Byfield yet. I'm perfectly happy with Kupari. I'm concerned about Turcotte due to health concerns.

I'm well aware of your concerns. I don't necessarily share all of them and I certainly don't think they're enough to suggest a systemic failure or inability to recognize "GREAT talent" vs merely "very good NHL talent".

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

The QB evaluation, we will see. There was obvious much debate about which player to take. But if TS blows up this year and QB doesn’t it’s going to be another ding for evaluation of these players. This is the year QB has to make a move where we can see a glimmer of hope.

To me, this is the single biggest issue with these discussions.

Turcotte's development is independent from Zegras'.

Byfield's development is independent from Stutzle's.

Sure, there will be a natural comparison and link--but Zegras arriving early doesn't make Turcotte a bust, yet a lot of these arguments go "well Byfield sucks because look what Stutzle is doing." That's fallacious. It's just impetuous and childish envy, like look my neighbor got a camaro before me when you don't know if you're getting a pinto, camaro, or ferrari.

 

[Herby]

So who have the Kings taken in the 1st round and how far back are we really going?

Because right off the bat we're looking at a discrepancy in sample size.

1 round vs 6 rounds x however many years you're looking at. Less opportunity for the Kings to impress.

no first round picks in 2013, 2015, 2016
last pick in 2012 and 2014 (Pearson and Kempe)

2017 - Vilardi
2018 - Kupari
2019 - Turcotte/Bjornfot
2020 - Byfield
2021 - Clarke

We're talking about 6 players drafted in the last 5 years. 4 centers and 2 defenseman.

I’m talking about under Blake.

6 first round picks and none of them were in the Kings optimal lineup in the playoffs. You don’t believe that is a cause for concern?

2 of the centers drafted #5 and #11 switched to the wing 3 and 5 seasons into their time with the organization. Is that normal?

I defended Bjornfot and liked him his first 2 years but at the end of the year he wasn’t in the top 9 on the Def depth chart. He very clearly regressed. Nothing to worry about?

Kaliyev, Anderson, Spence are not just numbers as far as quantity, these guys all performed better than the 1st rounders did too.

A rebuild can’t be successful if the picks expected to produce stars don’t.

 

[KINGS17]

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?

I will tell you what it isn't for the guys with the podcasts, it's never the fault of the people granting the podcasters "insider access" to the Kings organization.

Welcome to King's Pravda Insider!

 

[SmytheKing]

To me, this is the single biggest issue with these discussions.

Turcotte's development is independent from Zegras'.

Byfield's development is independent from Stutzle's.

Sure, there will be a natural comparison and link--but Zegras arriving early doesn't make Turcotte a bust, yet a lot of these arguments go "well Byfield sucks because look what Stutzle is doing." That's fallacious. It's just impetuous and childish envy, like look my neighbor got a camaro before me when you don't know if you're getting a pinto, camaro, or ferrari.

I think the reasons for those two comparisons are because:

1. TS and QB were the choices for #2 that year. It was a "do you want the possible higher upside franchise 1C or do you want the probably ready to go now guy with flash and lower ceiling but likely to hit?" issue. The Kings went with the homerun pick and it hasn't worked out...yet.
2. Turcotte and Zegras played on the same team and, in the opposite of the QB/TS debate, the Kings went with the safe pick instead of the risky one. I don't think it's fair to question the pick at all though because that draft was filled with guys from 3-10 that an argument could have been made for.

 

[All The Kings Men]

I’m talking about under Blake.

6 first round picks and none of them were in the Kings optimal lineup in the playoffs. You don’t believe that is a cause for concern?

No. I get why I think they made those decisions.

2 of the centers drafted #5 and #11 switched to the wing 3 and 5 seasons into their time with the organization. Is that normal?

I'm not interested in what's "normal". Nothing about the career of Gabriel Vilardi has been normal. Rasmus Kupari switched to wing. So what? It happens.

I defended Bjornfot and liked him his first 2 years but at the end of the year he wasn’t in the top 9 on the Def depth chart. He very clearly regressed. Nothing to worry about?

how much of that was situational? Partnering him with Durzi was a disaster. If they decided that they would rather have Sean Durzi over Bjornfot because of the makeup of the rest of the blueline and a desperate attempt to make the playoffs and win a series... I don't love it maybe but I completely understand it and I refuse to freak out about a 20 year old not being in the lineup every night.

Kaliyev, Anderson, Spence are not just numbers as far as quantity, these guys all performed better than the 1st rounders did too.

A rebuild can’t be successful if the picks expected to produce stars don’t.

Players have to be given star opportunity to produce as stars in order to become stars.

Kaliyev and Spence aren't stars. They're solid players contributing to an NHL team. Just like Rasmus Kupari and Tobias Bjornfor did.

 

[Herby]

I think the reasons for those two comparisons are because:

1. TS and QB were the choices for #2 that year. It was a "do you want the possible higher upside franchise 1C or do you want the probably ready to go now guy with flash and lower ceiling but likely to hit?" issue. The Kings went with the homerun pick and it hasn't worked out...yet.
2. Turcotte and Zegras played on the same team and, in the opposite of the QB/TS debate, the Kings went with the safe pick instead of the risky one. I don't think it's fair to question the pick at all though because that draft was filled with guys from 3-10 that an argument could have been made for.

That second point is what is really depressing.

If they had just gone the safe route twice or swung for the fences twice we have Kopitar’s replacement ready for next season should he falter more.

Instead we have AK as the #1C at 35

 

[KINGS17]

I see too much Corey Perry in Vilardi to give up on him now.

He's a unique quantity amongst kings prospects with his size, boards ability, and hands. We have plenty of fast, persistent guys, it's okay to have a slug or two if they serve a purpose.

I do agree he needs to produce to stay in the NHL.

Yes, Vilardi is a slick passer, and has great hands around the net with a quick release. He needs to be on the power play to let his offensive skill fully develop.

Having Kopitar on the power play at this stage of his career and the team's development track is a waste of time.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Colorado is where they're at because they hit it big with their first round picks. MacKinnon (1st), Landeskog (2nd), Rantanen (10th), Makar (4th), and recent picks from 2019 in Byram (4th) and Newhook (16th), have contributed.

The Kings haven't seen that kind of impact with their first round selections since Anze Kopitar and Drew Doughty.