Didn't they call it a "retool" initially? It's entirely feasible, maybe even likely, that the Kings mgmt saw the period of subpar performance and high picks merely as opportunity to add assets that can be used for another kick at the can for Kopitar and Doughty. Maybe, internally, there's never been any excitement or mandate to grow the new faces of the LA Kings.
If you look at it like that, their handling makes a lot more sense. If there was no vision to see the Fabers, Vilardis etc. as the faces of a new generation of players, then them being moved is hardly shocking. The player development - it makes more sense when you're looking at it as developing plug and play footsoldiers with the mandate to win alongside Kopitar and Doughty, rather than a personal growth opportunity for a new generation of players. The latter's inevitable growing pains don't fit a win-now mentality, so atypical talents who don't provide immediate utility in a supporting role are stuck in limbo of AHL or checking roles that don't fit them or dealt for finished products.
Everyone knows giving a 28 year old winger like Rantanen a massive contract is the wrong move when you don't have an established #1 C or #1 D in the same age-group or younger. But this is the kind of move that will ensure franchise stability without anyone losing jobs or making hard decisions, of course ultimately at the cost of actually competing for the Cup. I have already speculated a while back that I would not be surprised if internally they talked Elias Pettersson when there were rumors of him being available. With Kopitar and Doughty aging out and with the prospect of facing the catastrophy of their own doing when that happens, I would bet good money that the acquisition of a star player is high on their priority list in near future.
Why do I think that? It would be interesting to know who actually holds the most power in the Kings hierarchy but I am increasingly convinced that somewhere in this chain of command the main philosophy is financial stability, job security, nepotism and avoidance of losing over actual desire to win. Totally different than Dean Lombardi, who managed to manoeuvre through this power-hierarchy to make his vision, of winning, the one that ultimately won out.
My belief is there is something inside the corporate power-hierarchy of the Kings that has resulted in a franchise that prioritizes financial and corporate stability even at the long-term expense of winning, that is, of actually having a chance to realistically compete for the Cup. Lombardi gets plenty of credit for his hockey moves, but maybe we didn't give him enough credit as an executive that manoeuvred through this maze of self-interest and power-hierarchies to protect his hockey vision.
It's one thing to merely look at the failure to build a Cup contender from the perspective of hockey operations, but increasingly, after Lombardi, I don't think this organization was ever interested, nor is it presently interested, in creating a new generation of key LA Kings players and faces of the franchise. It just hasn't been high on the priority list. And I think ultimately this is a consequence of some inside power-hierarchy interests driving this thing. It's not a pure hockey matter.
