Prospect Info: 5th Overall Pick, Alex Turcotte, C, USNTDP UPDATED: Signs 3 Year ELC 3/11/20

[Legionnaire]

The 22nd pick in last year's draft says hi. 18 year old Bjornfot played very well in the AHL in his rookie year this season in a position that is more difficult to master. Yes, that doesn't happen often, but I'm willing to bet the 5th overall in the draft will be fine at 19 years old in the AHL. He skates very well, his compete level and talent are high.

No, no. I get it. How many times have the Kings had the best prospect pool and then nothing? Herby's scepticism is warranted.

 

[kilowatt]

No, no. I get it. How many times have the Kings had the best prospect pool and then nothing? Herby's scepticism is warranted.

That's a fair point, but something feels... different this time.

 

[Legionnaire]

That's a fair point, but something feels... different this time.

We already had that feeling and then we won two Cups.

To me, this seems far more Blake hodgepodge than it was when Dean came in with a gameplan.

We'll see though.

 

[Omni Owl]

The thing I liked about Lombardi was that he looked at successful franchises from other sports and took what worked for those teams and implemented those strategies for the Kings. Drafting and developing the right players was part of it, but DL mainly changed the whole culture of the franchise by getting the right guys to gel together.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

No, no. I get it. How many times have the Kings had the best prospect pool and then nothing? Herby's scepticism is warranted.

Literally the best? Pretty much never.

Every franchise even the Kings has always had at least a handful of Pavel Rosas etc., I get the skepticism, but the sheer depth even BEFORE this upcoming draft is absolutely absurd.

We already had that feeling and then we won two Cups.

To me, this seems far more Blake hodgepodge than it was when Dean came in with a gameplan.

We'll see though.

I get that as a Kings fan it's normal to expect Lucy to move the football from Charlie Brown but suggesting this is some random Blake propaganda flies in the face of literally every single credible prospect writer, all of whom have the Kings top-3 if not top-1, and those who don't have the Kings at 1 are typically looking at the 23-and-unders rather than just prospects.

Sure, there's the outside chance that 25 good prospects all bust. But expecting that is going out of your way to not enjoy hockey.

 

[KINGS17]

If you believe he belongs on the bottom six of those teams, then he's f***ed anyway, and we can't cause any more damage.

If you believe he doesn't belong on the bottom six of those teams, than that's pretty close to a vote for him not being there.

I think most will generally agree with you and @Herby that college couldn't hurt but this is a specific situation, the situation being Wisconsin is apparently a shitshow and the Kings need control of his development. You may recall even earlier this season I was on board with him finishing another year there but as rumors arose and the team fell apart I started to fall off the train. Scoring 8 points in 4 games then getting demoted to line 3? Give me a break.

Now if he's somehow a head case and earning that by being a total turd I would rather him turn pro and get fed his lunch by Stothers anyway. There are very, very few pros to him staying in Wisconsin another year at this point, and a lot of red flags suggesting he shouldn't.

It's not that I think Turcotte should be slotted where he has been on those team, it's the coaches who watch him in practice and in games every day who have slotted him there. I believe most of the guys playing ahead of him are either older, or were putting up better offensive numbers at the time.

My point is let Turcotte have an opportunity to take a top six role at the NCAA level and see how he runs with it. You suggested Turcotte's games in the AHL could be limited to ensure he doesn't get overwhelmed. Do you think Stothers is going to play him in the top six in two-thirds of the Reign games, while Turcotte sits out the other third? Not a healthy situation for him or the team.

 

[Fat Elvis]

The thing DL did well was communicate his plan. He had the boards going with boxes and checks, where there were specific types of players he was looking for.
Blake needs almost everything, so a board with boxes may look overwhelming. Turtaco is part of the influx of "high end" skill hopefully. It'd be disappointing if he ends up at a 3rd line center.
I'm unsure of what's best for him to be groomed into that top 6 center position, but maybe playing in Wisconsin isn't the best path for that.

 

[Legionnaire]

Literally the best? Pretty much never.

Every franchise even the Kings has always had at least a handful of Pavel Rosas etc., I get the skepticism, but the sheer depth even BEFORE this upcoming draft is absolutely absurd.





I get that as a Kings fan it's normal to expect Lucy to move the football from Charlie Brown but suggesting this is some random Blake propaganda flies in the face of literally every single credible prospect writer, all of whom have the Kings top-3 if not top-1, and those who don't have the Kings at 1 are typically looking at the 23-and-unders rather than just prospects.

Sure, there's the outside chance that 25 good prospects all bust. But expecting that is going out of your way to not enjoy hockey.

I like you man, you are a Kings fan, but are you even serious?

I'm asking because...

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

It's not that I think Turcotte should be slotted where he has been on those team, it's the coaches who watch him in practice and in games every day who have slotted him there. I believe most of the guys playing ahead of him are either older, or were putting up better offensive numbers at the time.

My point is let Turcotte have an opportunity to take a top six role at the NCAA level and see how he runs with it. You suggested Turcotte's games in the AHL could be limited to ensure he doesn't get overwhelmed. Do you think Stothers is going to play him in the top six in two-thirds of the Reign games, while Turcotte sits out the other third? Not a healthy situation for him or the team.

He had it and ran with it to the tune of PPG despite injury, illness, and a mediocre-at-best team.

Yes, I'm suggesting can play in the AHL under the Vilardi plan, where you take care of him and monitor as appropriate.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

I like you man, you are a Kings fan, but are you even serious?

I'm asking because...

#2: NHL farm system rankings: Best, worst prospect pipelines for 2019-20, from 1 to 31

#1: https://thehockeywriters.com/nhl-farm-system-rankings/

#4: Pronman: 2019-20 NHL farm system rankings

#1: Scott Wheeler's 2020 NHL prospect pool rankings

#2: Ranking all 31 NHL prospect pipelines: Why the Rangers are No. 1

Need I go on, or do you just want to be miserable based on things that happened over a decade ago

 

[cyclones22]

The Kings maybe have had close to the best Prospect pool maybe once prior to this season. The wording reads like it's happened more than once and the Kings have squandered those highlyrated Prospect pools repeatedly and it definitely has not.

That being said I think people remember that Brayden Schenn was called the best prospect outside of the NHL at the point of the Richards trade. But let's be real, I don't think any of us thought that he was actually worthy of what the title typically means. All of the highly rated prospects above him had already graduated to the NHL. He was the best of a weak crop. I still do that trade 100 out of 100 times even with the Richards buyout.

What Lombardi did well at least at first was trading away prospects for NHL players before they could prove that they weren't actually going to reach their potential in the NHL. I don't know how we can determine that Blake is not going to do the same at this point in time. That's why it's so important to collect all of these picks and prospects now so you can turn them into a 25ish year-old player who is disgruntled in his current situation and wants out.

 

[Lt Dan]

#2: NHL farm system rankings: Best, worst prospect pipelines for 2019-20, from 1 to 31

#1: https://thehockeywriters.com/nhl-farm-system-rankings/

#4: Pronman: 2019-20 NHL farm system rankings

#1: Scott Wheeler's 2020 NHL prospect pool rankings

#2: Ranking all 31 NHL prospect pipelines: Why the Rangers are No. 1

Need I go on, or do you just want to be miserable based on things that happened over a decade ago

For those familiar with the meme

 

[BigKing]

I think Legionnaire is simply stating that the Kings have, in fact, had highly rated prospect pools in the past. I posted how HF had them at #2 after the Doughty draft and then I think #5 after the Schenn draft with Doughty not factoring in since he had graduated. The point being made is that those high rankings were on the backs of Hickey/Bernier/Teubert and others that never lived up to the hype, yet there were the Kings ranked as a Top 5 pool.

For as highly touted the pool was back then, none of it matters without the Doughty selection. It isn't a hot take to say that the Kings don't have a Doughty in the pipeline--seeing as Doughty is a future HHOF'er and a very special player--but it does mean that some perspective needs to be used when gushing over the current prospect pool. It is primarily based on depth as opposed to a real game breaker as, in all honesty, there is not one slam dunk top line/top pair guy in the bunch. Doesn't mean there isn't one and it doesn't mean that I'm not happy with what the pipeline looks like, but it reinforces my belief that Blake is going to have to use some of these prospects plus picks to eventually move on a legit known quantity.

As for the discussion regarding Dean's drafting of certain types of players, Blake just needed to draft as much talent as possible since they needed help everywhere. Moving forward though, there should be a little more effort put into type of player. Doesn't mean take all intangibles over talent but, man, we must ice the nicest team in the league and our prospects don't seem to have a mean bone in their bodies outside of maybe Hults. The Clifford as a culture changer thing gets laughed at on here, but all of a sudden this team had Simmonds and Clifford on it and they weren't taking any shit as teenagers. This team needs someone to stir things up and inject some emotion into emotionless games.

 

[kings11]

The thing DL did well was communicate his plan. He had the boards going with boxes and checks, where there were specific types of players he was looking for.
Blake needs almost everything, so a board with boxes may look overwhelming. Turtaco is part of the influx of "high end" skill hopefully. It'd be disappointing if he ends up at a 3rd line center.
I'm unsure of what's best for him to be groomed into that top 6 center position, but maybe playing in Wisconsin isn't the best path for that.

DL was handed Kopitar, Brown and Quick... Blake has rebuilt the pipeline in 3 short years with impressive drafting and will have a ton of cap space should he be allowed to spend it.. Add Lafreniere to this mix and our return to the playoffs would be hastened.
Turcotte could play the LW in a top 6 role if in fact Viladri continues to shine... We're in a damn good spot with our kids and how quickly they're developing... Also add in the FOs ability to sign impactful college UFAs and we'll get better much sooner than anticipated!

 

[kings11]

I think Legionnaire is simply stating that the Kings have, in fact, had highly rated prospect pools in the past. I posted how HF had them at #2 after the Doughty draft and then I think #5 after the Schenn draft with Doughty not factoring in since he had graduated. The point being made is that those high rankings were on the backs of Hickey/Bernier/Teubert and others that never lived up to the hype, yet there were the Kings ranked as a Top 5 pool.

For as highly touted the pool was back then, none of it matters without the Doughty selection. It isn't a hot take to say that the Kings don't have a Doughty in the pipeline--seeing as Doughty is a future HHOF'er and a very special player--but it does mean that some perspective needs to be used when gushing over the current prospect pool. It is primarily based on depth as opposed to a real game breaker as, in all honesty, there is not one slam dunk top line/top pair guy in the bunch. Doesn't mean there isn't one and it doesn't mean that I'm not happy with what the pipeline looks like, but it reinforces my belief that Blake is going to have to use some of these prospects plus picks to eventually move on a legit known quantity.

As for the discussion regarding Dean's drafting of certain types of players, Blake just needed to draft as much talent as possible since they needed help everywhere. Moving forward though, there should be a little more effort put into type of player. Doesn't mean take all intangibles over talent but, man, we must ice the nicest team in the league and our prospects don't seem to have a mean bone in their bodies outside of maybe Hults. The Clifford as a culture changer thing gets laughed at on here, but all of a sudden this team had Simmonds and Clifford on it and they weren't taking any shit as teenagers. This team needs someone to stir things up and inject some emotion into emotionless games.

This is the point most people need to be aware of... We'll likely need to ship out 2-4 kids to get a 24-25YO established player that can help bridge the gap between the Kopitar/Doughty's and Vialrdi/Turcotte's.... Our Defense is taking shape with unseen/unexpected results.. The forwards group has introduced Vilardi with many more waiting over the next 2-3 seasons, some of which will be trade bait..

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

I think Legionnaire is simply stating that the Kings have, in fact, had highly rated prospect pools in the past. I posted how HF had them at #2 after the Doughty draft and then I think #5 after the Schenn draft with Doughty not factoring in since he had graduated. The point being made is that those high rankings were on the backs of Hickey/Bernier/Teubert and others that never lived up to the hype, yet there were the Kings ranked as a Top 5 pool.

For as highly touted the pool was back then, none of it matters without the Doughty selection. It isn't a hot take to say that the Kings don't have a Doughty in the pipeline--seeing as Doughty is a future HHOF'er and a very special player--but it does mean that some perspective needs to be used when gushing over the current prospect pool. It is primarily based on depth as opposed to a real game breaker as, in all honesty, there is not one slam dunk top line/top pair guy in the bunch. Doesn't mean there isn't one and it doesn't mean that I'm not happy with what the pipeline looks like, but it reinforces my belief that Blake is going to have to use some of these prospects plus picks to eventually move on a legit known quantity.

As for the discussion regarding Dean's drafting of certain types of players, Blake just needed to draft as much talent as possible since they needed help everywhere. Moving forward though, there should be a little more effort put into type of player. Doesn't mean take all intangibles over talent but, man, we must ice the nicest team in the league and our prospects don't seem to have a mean bone in their bodies outside of maybe Hults. The Clifford as a culture changer thing gets laughed at on here, but all of a sudden this team had Simmonds and Clifford on it and they weren't taking any shit as teenagers. This team needs someone to stir things up and inject some emotion into emotionless games.

So I guess we're going to pretend Voynov, Quick, Martinez, Clifford, Lewis, Simmonds didn't pan out or what? Or that the Kings didn't win with a mostly homegrown roster such that others in the NHL were calling the Kings the 'model' of franchise development?

You're right, perspective does need to be exercised--the Kings have a top 10 even deeper than that now, and those depth selections matter, because that's where you get 'surprises' like Quick, Martinez. Maybe Kaliyev busts, but Fagemo goes nuclear. Maybe for some reason Bjornfot doesn't quite take, but Nousiainen and Spence blow up. Petersen has his best years when we aren't competitive, but Parik steals the job anyway. Did we notice Roy is on the roster, and our other 7th round picks are enjoying success around the NHL? And that's ignoring UDFAs like Iafallo, Lizotte, Walker.

No one is saying all those top prospects are going to make it. But when we have a prospect list that goes 25 deep before people start losing interest in voting, that tells you something. And absolutely what happens next matters because they aren't all going to play, just like Schenn barely did before getting moved. But there's skepticism, and then there's negativity. The post I was responding to wasn't simply skepticism. "ho hum, seen it before" is the same vein as the "vilardi's done" garbage from last summer.

 

[Lt Dan]

DL was handed Kopitar, Brown and Quick...

I wouldn't say he was handed Quick

Taylor's regime may have drafted him but Lombardi gets all the credit for developing him. If the regime change hadn't happened, Quick would have been another Daniel Taylor, Yutaka Fukufuji, Ryan Munce, Matt Zaba, Terry Denike, Sebastien Laplante, Nathan Marsters, or Carl Grahn

 

[BigKing]

So I guess we're going to pretend Voynov, Quick, Martinez, Clifford, Lewis, Simmonds didn't pan out or what? Or that the Kings didn't win with a mostly homegrown roster such that others in the NHL were calling the Kings the 'model' of franchise development?

You're right, perspective does need to be exercised--the Kings have a top 10 even deeper than that now, and those depth selections matter, because that's where you get 'surprises' like Quick, Martinez. Maybe Kaliyev busts, but Fagemo goes nuclear. Maybe for some reason Bjornfot doesn't quite take, but Nousiainen and Spence blow up. Petersen has his best years when we aren't competitive, but Parik steals the job anyway. Did we notice Roy is on the roster, and our other 7th round picks are enjoying success around the NHL? And that's ignoring UDFAs like Iafallo, Lizotte, Walker.

No one is saying all those top prospects are going to make it. But when we have a prospect list that goes 25 deep before people start losing interest in voting, that tells you something. And absolutely what happens next matters because they aren't all going to play, just like Schenn barely did before getting moved. But there's skepticism, and then there's negativity. The post I was responding to wasn't simply skepticism. "ho hum, seen it before" is the same vein as the "vilardi's done" garbage from last summer.

Yes: guys that aren't Top 5 in the pool will make it which is why the depth is important but that depth is most likely not going to be a Kopitar, Doughty or Brown. Could be a Quick since goalies are weirdos but my concern is the ultra-high end doesn't seem to be there. I also know that the odds are heavily stacked against the current Top 5 all meeting the hype with at least one of them probably being a complete bust so remove him in favor of one of the surprises as opposed to adding a surprise on top of apparent guarantees.

I'm stoked on the prospect pool. Don't get me wrong. I just don't like the narrative of "Top ranked prospect pool = WE'RE COMING FOR YOUR WIFE AND KIDS IN TWO YEARS!!!" Now, if they get Laf, then maybe I change my mind. I'd damn near trade every pick in this draft to move up to #1 just to add that ultra-elite talent to the pool.

 

[kings11]

I wouldn't say he was handed Quick

Taylor's regime may have drafted him but Lombardi gets all the credit for developing him. If the regime change hadn't happened, Quick would have been another Daniel Taylor, Yutaka Fukufuji, Ryan Munce, Matt Zaba, Terry Denike, Sebastien Laplante, Nathan Marsters, or Carl Grahn

I doubt that, I think Quick was just one of those competitive individuals who was going to succeed no matter what... DL's guy was Bernier more so than Quickie

 

[KINGS17]

DL was handed Kopitar, Brown and Quick... Blake has rebuilt the pipeline in 3 short years with impressive drafting and will have a ton of cap space should he be allowed to spend it.. Add Lafreniere to this mix and our return to the playoffs would be hastened.
Turcotte could play the LW in a top 6 role if in fact Viladri continues to shine... We're in a damn good spot with our kids and how quickly they're developing... Also add in the FOs ability to sign impactful college UFAs and we'll get better much sooner than anticipated!

There is little evidence to suggest Blake has rebuilt anything yet. He has done fine keeping his picks. We have no idea what type of NHL players these kids will become. It's all up to scouting and development now.

I remember when the Kings prospect pool was highly rated right after the 2003 draft when the Kings took Brown, Boyle, and Tambellini. Dave Taylor did all kinds of maneuvering to get three picks in the first round of that draft because it was so deep. Indeed it was deep, but the Kings failed to pick the correct players.

Then 2004 came, and uh oh look out NHL, the Kings have selected Tukonen in the first round, a player the Red Wings were reported to be seriously considering as an under the radar pick.

The 2005 draft comes, and finally the Kings get their 1C and a true impact player. Thank God he was Slovenian, because he doesn't fall to the Kings if he is Swedish, Canadian, or American.

It's waaaayyyy to soon to give Blake any credit for drafting and developing great players.

 

[KINGS17]

I wouldn't say he was handed Quick

Taylor's regime may have drafted him but Lombardi gets all the credit for developing him. If the regime change hadn't happened, Quick would have been another Daniel Taylor, Yutaka Fukufuji, Ryan Munce, Matt Zaba, Terry Denike, Sebastien Laplante, Nathan Marsters, or Carl Grahn

Yeah, Lombardi had to tell Quick to buy an alarm clock and give him a swift kick in the ass to get him to realize his full potetial.

In the Taylor days, Quick is the kind of guy the Kings trade, then force feed Bernier only to watch the goalie taken in the 1st round fail.

 

[KINGS17]

I doubt that, I think Quick was just one of those competitive individuals who was going to succeed no matter what... DL's guy was Bernier more so than Quickie

Not true. Dean liked Bernier no doubt about it, and wanted him to succeed, but when asked about the Kings goalie of the future he always brought Quick into the conversation.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

There is little evidence to suggest Blake has rebuilt anything yet. He has done fine keeping his picks. We have no idea what type of NHL players these kids will become. It's all up to scouting and development now.

I remember when the Kings prospect pool was highly rated right after the 2003 draft when the Kings took Brown, Boyle, and Tambellini. Dave Taylor did all kinds of maneuvering to get three picks in the first round of that draft because it was so deep. Indeed it was deep, but the Kings failed to pick the correct players.

Then 2004 came, and uh oh look out NHL, the Kings have selected Tukonen in the first round, a player the Red Wings were reported to be seriously considering as an under the radar pick.

The 2005 draft comes, and finally the Kings get their 1C and a true impact player. Thank God he was Slovenian, because he doesn't fall to the Kings if he is Swedish, Canadian, or American.

It's waaaayyyy to soon to give Blake any credit for drafting and developing great players.

As I pointed out in another thread, there's an ocean of difference in the 2003 and 2020 regime's ability to draft NHLers outside the first round.

Yes, they have yet to pan out, but given how many picks we've hit on in even late rounds, I don't think it's fair at all to remotely compare 2003-2004 to 2020.

 

[Herby]

I wouldn't say he was handed Quick

Taylor's regime may have drafted him but Lombardi gets all the credit for developing him. If the regime change hadn't happened, Quick would have been another Daniel Taylor, Yutaka Fukufuji, Ryan Munce, Matt Zaba, Terry Denike, Sebastien Laplante, Nathan Marsters, or Carl Grahn

That is total BS and disrespects the athleticism and will to win of one of the most talented players in the history of the franchise.

I usually respect your opinion but this is one of the worst takes ever. Show some respect to Quick, he would have been a star for whatever team drafted him.

 

[KINGS17]

As I pointed out in another thread, there's an ocean of difference in the 2003 and 2020 regime's ability to draft NHLers outside the first round.

Yes, they have yet to pan out, but given how many picks we've hit on in even late rounds, I don't think it's fair at all to remotely compare 2003-2004 to 2020.

Drafting 17 year olds is an imprecise business. The Kings haven't developed a top six forward in quite some time. I will give them credit for Pearson and Toffoli, but am hard pressed to identify any after those two.