2022 Draft Discussion (after the trade)

[King'sPawn]

Forwards drafted after the Kings picks, taken in the 1st or 2nd round, and have played at least 82 games (a season's worth in the NHL):

2017
Martin Necas
Nick Suzuki
Josh Norris
Robert Thomas
Filip Chytil
Kailer Yamamoto
Ryan Poehling
Eeli Tolvanen
Jesper Boqvist
Jason Robertson
Eetu Luostarinen
Alexander Texier
Alex Formenton
Maxime Comtois

Combined games played by Kings forwards from rounds 1+2: 139 (Vilardi and JAD)

2018
Isaac Lundestrom

Combined games played by Kings forwards from rounds 1+2: 64 (Kupari and Thomas)

2019
Dylan Cozens
Trevor Zegras
Nils Hoglander

Combined games played by Kings forwards from rounds 1+2: 89 (Turcotte and Kaliyev)

2020
Tim Stutzle
Lucas Raymond
Dawson Mercer

Combined games played by Kings forwards from rounds 1+2: 46 (Byfield)

That doesn't include some players who just missed the cut off (for example, Newhook and Caufield with 77 games each)

This has all happened since Blake took over. Playoff bound teams and rebuilding teams. And these prospects aren't superstars right now - but we're not expecting them to. BUT, they are in a variety of roles, including the top 6.

 

[All The Kings Men]

I still struggle to see what team Blake is trying to rebuild like. What team from the past 15 years does the Kings rebuild remind you of?

What team in the modern history of the league

- Won the Cup twice in a three year stretch
- fired their coach/GM three yaers later
- drafted 2nd overall 2 years later
- made the playoffs 2 years later

AND

- never got rid of 1C, 1D and 1G?

I hesitate to call it arebuild but whatever you want to call it.... it's not the same thing as what the Kings did from 2006 - 2012

It's not the same thing as what any other "rebuilding team" has done to my memory.

It's a whole new thing.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

So which is it, is he back to being a Jonathan Toews Hall of Famer, last week it was Lizotte +, can’t even figure it out it changes with you every week.

Gave up on before 2020? You mean correctly predicting what type of player he projected as at the next level? I said Andrew Copp and you said Jonathan Toews, now I am being criticized as “giving up on a player”, I guess correctly saying someone’s ceiling as a solid middle six is giving up on in your book. But there is nothing wrong with proclaiming that player as the next Hall of Famer.

Would it have have better if I went on Madison with your homer glasses and called him the next Jonathan Toews. But I guess having a correct view on a Kings pick is a bad thing because what did you say “not invested in his success” ? In your eyes it’s better to be optimistic and wrong than pessimistic and right.

And again, funny how you call me out for saying I have irrational views on a player. What is more irrational, saying Alex Turcotte is a future middle six player or saying on this forum last summer that you wouldn’t trade Turcotte for Zegras, Seider or Caufield, that is what you said. Which view is more irrational?

I have no idea what your rambling attempts at insults are here. All I'm saying is it's foolish to compare Turcotte two years after his draft to several guys 10 years after their draft, and for the more recent ones, they're putting up the kind of production that gets prospects on this forum completely eviscerated but they're being used as an example of success because they have a different name on a different team.

I don't even really take issue with your upside comparisons other than that you proclaim them as set in stone rather than ultimately malleable.

As Ziggy already correctly pointed out, those players all had immediate success in the NHL, none of the Kings marquee prospects have.

Absolutely, but as I pointed out, it's insane to compare Mackinnon and landeskog joining a historically bad avs team or Kopitar and doughty joining a rock bottom kings team because they were handed sink or swim roles and #1 pp minutes regardless while our current guys aren't even getting PP time in ontario. We don't know what kind of immediate success, say, Byfield could have had being thrown into a 1C role on a basement team. Sure we can guess but it's a foolish comparison.

I said on this forum earlier today that I would trade Byfield for a 1st liner (like Pasta or Miller) not that I’d trade him for anything. Byfield is also not MacKinnon, but for someone who likes to compare Vilardi to Perry (a former league MVP) or Turcotte to Toews ( a future HOF’er) I guess it’s par for the course. Will Brandt Clarke be the next Ray Bourque or we going to shoot for the moon for Bobby Orr?

But getting back to my trade suggestion, while I didn’t say I’d trade QB for the best offer I could get, I did say id trade Turcotte for the best offer we could get in the fall of 2019, was that analysis wrong. Considering what the Kings could have gotten would they have been in better shape now with that trade? Yea they would, but here is where I am called a fake fan. Because I wasn’t blindly all in on a high pick with obvious flaws to his game.

Is your opinion now that we should wait a decade to evaluate draft picks? Sure sounds like it.

Also, your last comment makes no sense. I simply pointed out a correct fact that the successful teams of the post lockout era were all built on the backs of drafting game breaking Hall of Fame talent, the Kings included a long with Pittsburgh, Chicago, Tampa . And yes there are plenty of teams trying to build that way right now, and the Kings could have been one of them. But the Kings chose to prematurely end their rebuild without a single young player establishing themselves as anything close to a star player to return to the black hole of the early 00’s where we make the playoffs the final week of the season and start on the road vs more talented teams. It was a wonderful era of hockey.

Frankly I think prospect trade value discussions are tough because if the guy immediately breaks in you're not going to move him anyway and if he doesn't--as you pointed out--they're an immediately depreciating asset until they prove they're something or they're not, so the risk vs. reward of trading one for a lesser piece is much too high. Only when you see change of scenery things do they truly happen--IE PLD/Laine. So, IMO, it's not worth trading Turcotte, Vilardi, et. al. unless someone is going to give you full potential value or close.

My last comment was in response to the "see? that's how you rebuild." Okay--draft multiple high pick and put it together over a decade is the example there. If you're following the Avs example, you're saying you're comfortable waiting for Turcotte until 2024 (you're clearly not) and the others after that. so it's at odds with your prospect critiques.

 

[Rorschach]

If Mateychuk drops to us, I could see us trading him soon after for like a 27-ish NHL LHD from a team that would like to get younger.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You hit the nail on the head about the instantly knowing they were special players. You just knew right away that 11 and 8 were going to be special players for the next 15 years.

We have had nothing close to players like that since then. Those are the types of players you have to draft to win championships. And your rebuild should not be over until you have atleast one player like that on your roster, and really probably 2.

I still struggle to see what team Blake is trying to rebuild like. What team from the past 15 years does the Kings rebuild remind you of?

It's actually reminding me of the Dave Taylor era Kings, whose most important players were the well established vets, and the younger players struggled to find their footing or never took the mantle over from the veterans.

Guys like Olli Jokinen, Aki Berg, Jamie Storr were high first round picks with lofty expectations who didn't quite pan out. They had quite a few misses with their later first round picks who didn't amount to anything or were traded (Matt Zultek, Mathieu Biron, Jens Karlsson, Dave Steckel, Denis Grebeshkov, Brian Boyle, Jeff Tambellini, Lauri Tukonen),

In all of the first round picks Taylor made, three of them were major succeses: Alexander Frolov, Dustin Brown, and Anze Kopitar.

Blake and his staff have five drafts and have made six selections in the first round. Of all of those first round selections made since 2017, the two who played most this past season were Kupari and Bjornfot, both of whom are still trying to establish themselves as regular everyday players in the lineup. Barring any trades, they should be regulars next year.

I expect Byfield to be an everyday player (if he isn't derailed by yet another injury), but I don't know what's going to happen with Vilardi, Turcotte isn't going to be in the NHL next season, and not sure if Clarke will crack the blueline as soon as next season, so we have a 50/50 split in determining which first round picks should be in the lineup, and which ones are on the bubble.

 

[JeanBlanc]

What are you adding to it besides Byfield because no way is NJ doing that trade straight up. Not with Hughes and Nico as their #1 and #2.

Good point about NJ being set at a center. I didn't think that through.

 

[lumbergh]

I think LA will end up with Jagger Firkus.

Tyler Toffoli like.

Some stupendous names in this draft. I don’t know nothing about any of these kids, but man, their parents really thought ahead to their hockey careers when they named them.

 

[KINGS17]

The value in playing Kopitar on the PP is because he actually had production where Vilardi and Byfield sucked hard when it came to production. If you want to say Kaliyev deserved more time I would agree but not at the expense of Kopitar. Danault and Iafallo were the none producers on the PP. I think Byfield was moved to the NHL to soon and Vilardi regressed this year. When someone out produces Kopitar then they deserve his minutes.

Kopitar had the most production, because he was given the most opportunities to produce, and when you look at it in terms of his rate of production, it was not good. This organization needs to stop wasting our time with Kopitar on the first unit PP.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

The value in playing Kopitar on the PP is because he actually had production where Vilardi and Byfield sucked hard when it came to production. If you want to say Kaliyev deserved more time I would agree but not at the expense of Kopitar. Danault and Iafallo were the none producers on the PP. I think Byfield was moved to the NHL to soon and Vilardi regressed this year. When someone out produces Kopitar then they deserve his minutes.

Danault and Arvidsson both outproduced Kopitar at 5v5--the latter in 15 fewer games. Moore tied him.

There were 10 players with a better 5v5 G/60 than Kopitar this year--Danault, AA, Kempe, Lemieux, Grundstrom, Arvidsson, Byfield, Lizotte, Iafallo, Vilardi. Kaliyev was JUST behind him.

The three top players in PP G/60? Vilardi, Kaliyev, Kupari. Kopitar appears at 7th.

Truth is, Kopitar was losing his 5v5 matchups and padding his stats on the PP. I LOVE the guy, and he certainly deserves PP time, but there is absolutely an easy case to be made for a LOT of the 2nd liners and, especially, youth.

 

[kenito7]

Kopitar had the most production, because he was given the most opportunities to produce, and when you look at it in terms of his rate of production, it was not good. This organization needs to stop wasting our time with Kopitar on the first unit PP.

Byfield and Vilardi produced nothing on the PP or otherwise.

 

[Lt Dan]

It's a whole new thing.

 

[kenito7]

Danault and Arvidsson both outproduced Kopitar at 5v5--the latter in 15 fewer games. Moore tied him.

There were 10 players with a better 5v5 G/60 than Kopitar this year--Danault, AA, Kempe, Lemieux, Grundstrom, Arvidsson, Byfield, Lizotte, Iafallo, Vilardi. Kaliyev was JUST behind him.

The three top players in PP G/60? Vilardi, Kaliyev, Kupari. Kopitar appears at 7th.

Truth is, Kopitar was losing his 5v5 matchups and padding his stats on the PP. I LOVE the guy, and he certainly deserves PP time, but there is absolutely an easy case to be made for a LOT of the 2nd liners and, especially, youth.

Most your stats are 5v5 and I was only talking PP.

You keep talking development and opportunity for the young guys but you know the decisions made the last off season moved the Kings from a rebuild to a team trying to make the playoffs.
I was not for the Danault signing or Arvidsson trade because I wanted those spots in the top 6 to go to the young guys but once the decision was made to go for the playoffs the youth was going to have to earn there time.

 

[bland]

What team in the modern history of the league

- Won the Cup twice in a three year stretch
- fired their coach/GM three yaers later
- drafted 2nd overall 2 years later
- made the playoffs 2 years later

AND

- never got rid of 1C, 1D and 1G?

I hesitate to call it arebuild but whatever you want to call it.... it's not the same thing as what the Kings did from 2006 - 2012

It's not the same thing as what any other "rebuilding team" has done to my memory.

It's a whole new thing.

I'd argue that it's not a whole new thing, but two seemingly conflicting normal things happening simultaneously.

They are putting the kids on the sloooooow boil while trying to honor the Cup core, or at least attempting to maximize their contracts.

I don't think the half measures will be successful in either direction and that the clear answer is to put all emphasis on the youth, but I will concede that the kids could possibly still end up just fine in the long run - more by fortune than design.

 

[bland]

Byfield and Vilardi produced nothing on the PP or otherwise.

They aren't supposed to be top unit PP players on a successful team yet, they are supposed to be top unit PP players on a team emerging from a rebuild. You don't need immediate results from them, you need progress.

Point being, the futility of the vets in their places is part of the reason the rebuild was required in the first place, and they aren't producing now either.

 

[johnjm22]

Danault and Arvidsson both outproduced Kopitar at 5v5--the latter in 15 fewer games. Moore tied him.

There were 10 players with a better 5v5 G/60 than Kopitar this year--Danault, AA, Kempe, Lemieux, Grundstrom, Arvidsson, Byfield, Lizotte, Iafallo, Vilardi. Kaliyev was JUST behind him.

The three top players in PP G/60? Vilardi, Kaliyev, Kupari. Kopitar appears at 7th.

Truth is, Kopitar was losing his 5v5 matchups and padding his stats on the PP. I LOVE the guy, and he certainly deserves PP time, but there is absolutely an easy case to be made for a LOT of the 2nd liners and, especially, youth.

And a lot of Kopitar's points are coming from coincidental assists.

The main reason LA lost to Edmonton was because Kopitar was unable to fulfil the role of a #1 center.

 

[kenito7]

They aren't supposed to be top unit PP players on a successful team yet, they are supposed to be top unit PP players on a team emerging from a rebuild. You don't need immediate results from them, you need progress.

Point being, the futility of the vets in their places is part of the reason the rebuild was required in the first place, and they aren't producing now either.

The Kings choose to try for the playoffs not develop young players. If you are the head coach of a team and you are told making the playoffs is your goal you play the players that you give the best chance to win now which is not the young guys. I would do the same thing if my 5 million dollar a year job depends on it.

And a lot of Kopitar's points are coming from coincidental assists.

The main reason LA lost to Edmonton was because Kopitar was unable to fulfil the role of a #1 center.

If not Kopitar what was their other options?

 

[bland]

The Kings choose to try for the playoffs not develop young players. If you are the head coach of a team and you are told making the playoffs is your goal you play the players that you give the best chance to win now which is not the young guys. I would do the same thing if my 5 million dollar a year job depends on it.


If not Kopitar what was their other options?

Build from within.

Its the only choice. The issues here aren't development, drafting, coaching or even the roster. Its the lack of coherent, productive management.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Most your stats are 5v5 and I was only talking PP.

You keep talking development and opportunity for the young guys but you know the decisions made the last off season moved the Kings from a rebuild to a team trying to make the playoffs.
I was not for the Danault signing or Arvidsson trade because I wanted those spots in the top 6 to go to the young guys but once the decision was made to go for the playoffs the youth was going to have to earn there time.

I guess the point was I was dressing the idea that other folks weren't productive enough to be on the PP.

Clearly at 5v5 more people 'deserved' it than Kopitar, not that I think Danault is a 'better' option, at least in Kopi's role

But this is PP "The three top players in PP G/60? Vilardi, Kaliyev, Kupari. Kopitar appears at 7th."

If that's not a case for more opportunity/time, what is?

 

[Herby]

What team in the modern history of the league

- Won the Cup twice in a three year stretch
- fired their coach/GM three yaers later
- drafted 2nd overall 2 years later
- made the playoffs 2 years later

AND

- never got rid of 1C, 1D and 1G?

I hesitate to call it arebuild but whatever you want to call it.... it's not the same thing as what the Kings did from 2006 - 2012

It's not the same thing as what any other "rebuilding team" has done to my memory.

It's a whole new thing.

Ok, thanks for answering.

So much like with having QB not be in the NHL at 18 and pulling Turcotte from college after his freshman year the Kings are not following previously successful models and are instead trying to do things that no other teams have tried before and just hoping that it will be successful?

And we are supposed to just accept it for what it is and not question these guys in any way?

 

[All The Kings Men]

Ok, thanks for answering.

So much like with having QB not be in the NHL at 18 and pulling Turcotte from college after his freshman year the Kings are not following previously successful models and are instead trying to do things that no other teams have tried before and just hoping that it will be successful?

And we are supposed to just accept it for what it is and not question these guys in any way?

I never said don't question them.

Question them all you want.

BUT

If you question something/someone that I don't think needs questioning or focus your questioning on something that I don't think is the main thing to be questioned then I'll question you about why you're questioning that and not questioning the thing I think is more deserving of being questioned.

 

[Maynard]

I never said don't question them.

Question them all you want.

BUT

If you question something/someone that I don't think needs questioning or focus your questioning on something that I don't think is the main thing to be questioned then I'll question you about why you're questioning that and not questioning the thing I think is more deserving of being questioned.

You should run for Mayor!

 

[lumbergh]

And a lot of Kopitar's points are coming from coincidental assists.

The main reason LA lost to Edmonton was because Kopitar was unable to fulfil the role of a #1 center.

If your definition of being a #1 center is going up against Connor McDavid and coming out on the plus side, then sure, Kopitar failed at that. You make it sound so easy!

I'm still befuddled by why McLellan didn't match Danault against McDavid and Kopitar against a slower Draisaitl.

 

[Docgonzo]

Draft thread is off the rails….

 

[KINGS17]

Byfield and Vilardi produced nothing on the PP or otherwise.

Waste. Of. Time.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Now how many NHL teams can claim that they drafted two Hall of Fame athletes from two different sports, both in the same draft?



The Kings also struck a deal to trade down with Chicago that same day in a trade that didn't work out so well for them.


Janecyk only lasted two full seasons and was seldom used thereafter, and Redmond turned into a major disappointment. Naturally, the six players drafted directly after him had long and successful careers.