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

[Raccoon Jesus]

Some are just better in the NHL and it's usually the 2 way types that play a more structured game.

That's Turcotte in a nutshell.

I know I'm a huge raging homer for him but the guy is just an absolute menace. Even if he weren't to reach his scoring potential, you just cannot walk away from a fierce competitor like that, one that does absolutely everything but shoot at an incredibly high level.

 

[All The Kings Men]

I’d like clarification. I listened to it a few times and it sounds like he asked them (scouts) at the time he was drafted. Maybe it was a more recent revelation or discussion similar to Wheeler’s thoughts on Turcotte. He also mentioned Fagemo likely being a more effective point producer in the next breath.

I'll ask him about the next time I see him (if I remember)... possible tomorrow or Friday.

If you don't hear my response by Sunday feel free to remind me to ask him for clarification.

 

[LAKings88]

I'll ask him about the next time I see him (if I remember)... possible tomorrow or Friday.

If you don't hear my response by Sunday feel free to remind me to ask him for clarification.

Overall in the end Turcotte is a King and I’ll root for his success. I just think the process of a pick is interesting. Would like to be a fly on the wall. I do think with hindsight, it’s a bit of a rough pill. I liked the pick very much at the time too. I guess Yannetti is the guy I’d like to have a sit down with honestly.

 

[Maynard]

I'll ask him about the next time I see him (if I remember)... possible tomorrow or Friday.

If you don't hear my response by Sunday feel free to remind me to ask him for clarification.

While you have his ear, please let him know that the banter between he and Faust is atrocious, and just please call the mother f***ing game.

 

[Choralone]

While you have his ear, please let him know that the banter between he and Faust is atrocious, and just please call the mother f***ing game.

Somehow I don't think he's going to pass this along.

 

[Maynard]

Somehow I don't think he's going to pass this along.

I’m sure he’ll find a nicer way to say it.

 

[JeanBlanc]

If a prospect on another team had the same past four years Gabe has had, what would we peg his value at and likelihood of panning out at? I think if another team was offering us a Vilardi type, we'd be looking at it as a salvage situation as well.

Like Lias Andersson?

 

[JeanBlanc]

Vilardi has a really wide range of outcomes. There have been plenty of guys like him with one glaring weakness who figure it out around 22/23 and end up being solid offensive options. There are also plenty of guys like him who just end up being AAAA players.

Oh that's interesting. You seem to be implying the question, "What is it about Vilardi that merits a callup over TJ Tynan?"

 

[kingsfan]

Like Lias Andersson?

Somewhat different players but good example and Andersson was drafted two spots higher overall than Vilardi. I'd peg Vilardi's value ahead of Andersson's given Vilardi isn't being a hold out halfway across the planet right now but Andersson only fetched a late 2nd. I doubt we'd get much more than a high 2nd and maybe a 5th for Vilardi pick wise at the moment.

 

[Herby]

Wrong thread: delete

 

[ru4reals]

Delete.

 

[JeanBlanc]

I doubt we'd get much more than a high 2nd and maybe a 5th for Vilardi pick wise at the moment.

Agreed. If the Kings trade Vilardi, it should be after he's shown what he can do as an NHL scoring winger.

I'm starting to suspect that Kings management won't make any moves this trade deadline that involve undervaluing the prospects because they haven't had a chance to shine in the NHL.

I'd love to see Turcotte given a full season next to Lizotte, maybe with JAD. I want to see that high-energy, puck-possession game with other skilled puck handlers.

 

[All The Kings Men]

Talked to Jim this morning...

I really should have recorded it BUT generally speaking

He said he was basing his comments re: Turcotte being a "third line center" not on specific conversation he had with the Kings front office but rather based on his personal conversations with different scouts and what he perceived as Turcotte's particular "game" and skill set. He didn't talk about Turcotte as being a player of lesser value. He reference his work ethic, leadership etc

I was about to ask for some clarification when he said precisely what I was going to ask about which is.... what did he MEAN by a 3rd liner then because he was giving a fairly glowing revue of Turcotte's abilities.

He said (and has made this distinction about other players previously) that when he mentions a third line role he means it on a Cup contending team.

He's frequently used this distinction when we talk about Lizotte. The question was always... Is Lizotte a center ON A CUP CONTENDER? Jim's contention (and mine as well) was that Lizotte would be a 4th line option on a Cup contender therefore he "is" a 4C.

I believe (without wasting all of Jim's time for the most perfect explanation) that Jim heard what scouts told him about Turcotte's game, saw the kind of person and player he is and assumed that the ideal role for him on a Cup contending team was as a 3rd line center.

Mike Richards name was brought up in comparison and while it was pointed out (by myself and others) that Richards played 1C, 2C, 3C and 4C at various points in his career. We started talking about where Turcotte would slot in on the current rosters and who we could even possibly play ahead of and while I know the initial conversation would have excluded Danault and Byfield and considerations I think the general overall feeling was that Turcotte was better served as a high character, high leadership, identity player rather with tremendous upside in the skill department rather than a high skill high offensive output player that happeened to have some good locker room qualities.

Whether or not that is the best use of a 5th overall pick is, I suppose, up for debate but Jim clearly saw the value in that kind of player and I certainly do as well so while I don't think his evaluation of Turcotte was intended to be as dire as it's portrayed it WAS intentional.

Hope that clears anything up at all but I feel like it made it more muddled.

 

[Herby]

Talked to Jim this morning...

I really should have recorded it BUT generally speaking

He said he was basing his comments re: Turcotte being a "third line center" not on specific conversation he had with the Kings front office but rather based on his personal conversations with different scouts and what he perceived as Turcotte's particular "game" and skill set. He didn't talk about Turcotte as being a player of lesser value. He reference his work ethic, leadership etc

I was about to ask for some clarification when he said precisely what I was going to ask about which is.... what did he MEAN by a 3rd liner then because he was giving a fairly glowing revue of Turcotte's abilities.

He said (and has made this distinction about other players previously) that when he mentions a third line role he means it on a Cup contending team.

He's frequently used this distinction when we talk about Lizotte. The question was always... Is Lizotte a center ON A CUP CONTENDER? Jim's contention (and mine as well) was that Lizotte would be a 4th line option on a Cup contender therefore he "is" a 4C.

I believe (without wasting all of Jim's time for the most perfect explanation) that Jim heard what scouts told him about Turcotte's game, saw the kind of person and player he is and assumed that the ideal role for him on a Cup contending team was as a 3rd line center.

Mike Richards name was brought up in comparison and while it was pointed out (by myself and others) that Richards played 1C, 2C, 3C and 4C at various points in his career. We started talking about where Turcotte would slot in on the current rosters and who we could even possibly play ahead of and while I know the initial conversation would have excluded Danault and Byfield and considerations I think the general overall feeling was that Turcotte was better served as a high character, high leadership, identity player rather with tremendous upside in the skill department rather than a high skill high offensive output player that happeened to have some good locker room qualities.

Whether or not that is the best use of a 5th overall pick is, I suppose, up for debate but Jim clearly saw the value in that kind of player and I certainly do as well so while I don't think his evaluation of Turcotte was intended to be as dire as it's portrayed it WAS intentional.

Hope that clears anything up at all but I feel like it made it more muddled.

That is a perfect description other than the Richards part as Richards was never a third liner other than perhaps his rookie year in Philadelphia. He spent most of his career as a 1C, two seasons in LA as a 2C and 1.5 seasons in LA as a 4C. MR was not a championship caliber 1C but he certainly was a championship caliber 2C before the wheels came off. Still don’t think there is any thing close to the offensive upside MR had, so more fair to compare him to some of the really good 3rd line forwards in the NHL, which isn’t the end of the world. Guys like that have pretty good value to a roster.

At this point the draft capital used on him is what it is. I personally don’t see how you can ever justify taking a guy like that with a ceiling that low with a pick that high but you have to just roll with it and hope he fills that elite 3rd line role on a future cup contender. If he is traded I think it’s also fair to not be critical of Blake if the return isn’t what you might expect from a top 5 pick less than 3 years after drafting him. We have to be fair in analyzing what his current value likely is, which is probably about on par with our #1 this year.

 

[Kudelski37]

That is a perfect description other than the Richards part as Richards was never a third liner other than perhaps his rookie year in Philadelphia. He spent most of his career as a 1C, two seasons in LA as a 2C and 1.5 seasons in LA as a 4C. MR was not a championship caliber 1C but he certainly was a championship caliber 2C before the wheels came off. Still don’t think there is any thing close to the offensive upside MR had, so more fair to compare him to some of the really good 3rd line forwards in the NHL, which isn’t the end of the world. Guys like that have pretty good value to a roster.

At this point the draft capital used on him is what it is. I personally don’t see how you can ever justify taking a guy like that with a ceiling that low with a pick that high but you have to just roll with it and hope he fills that elite 3rd line role on a future cup contender. If he is traded I think it’s also fair to not be critical of Blake if the return isn’t what you might expect from a top 5 pick less than 3 years after drafting him. We have to be fair in analyzing what his current value likely is, which is probably about on par with our #1 this year.

Richards was a 40pt championship 2C with LA. The non-scoring stuff was what made him a championship level 2C, not the scoring. Turcotte does that stuff too. He should be able to crack 40 points too. I don't see an issue.

 

[LAKings88]

Talked to Jim this morning...

I really should have recorded it BUT generally speaking

He said he was basing his comments re: Turcotte being a "third line center" not on specific conversation he had with the Kings front office but rather based on his personal conversations with different scouts and what he perceived as Turcotte's particular "game" and skill set. He didn't talk about Turcotte as being a player of lesser value. He reference his work ethic, leadership etc

I was about to ask for some clarification when he said precisely what I was going to ask about which is.... what did he MEAN by a 3rd liner then because he was giving a fairly glowing revue of Turcotte's abilities.

He said (and has made this distinction about other players previously) that when he mentions a third line role he means it on a Cup contending team.

He's frequently used this distinction when we talk about Lizotte. The question was always... Is Lizotte a center ON A CUP CONTENDER? Jim's contention (and mine as well) was that Lizotte would be a 4th line option on a Cup contender therefore he "is" a 4C.

I believe (without wasting all of Jim's time for the most perfect explanation) that Jim heard what scouts told him about Turcotte's game, saw the kind of person and player he is and assumed that the ideal role for him on a Cup contending team was as a 3rd line center.

Mike Richards name was brought up in comparison and while it was pointed out (by myself and others) that Richards played 1C, 2C, 3C and 4C at various points in his career. We started talking about where Turcotte would slot in on the current rosters and who we could even possibly play ahead of and while I know the initial conversation would have excluded Danault and Byfield and considerations I think the general overall feeling was that Turcotte was better served as a high character, high leadership, identity player rather with tremendous upside in the skill department rather than a high skill high offensive output player that happeened to have some good locker room qualities.

Whether or not that is the best use of a 5th overall pick is, I suppose, up for debate but Jim clearly saw the value in that kind of player and I certainly do as well so while I don't think his evaluation of Turcotte was intended to be as dire as it's portrayed it WAS intentional.

Hope that clears anything up at all but I feel like it made it more muddled.

Thanks Jesse.

I think it nails home the point that the Kings are looking for the right kind of player and not just the "flashy" player. Seems to be the philosophy they feel will make them a championship team in the long run.

Sometimes I just want some flash too tho.

 

[Herby]

Richards was a 40pt championship 2C with LA. The non-scoring stuff was what made him a championship level 2C, not the scoring. Turcotte does that stuff too. He should be able to crack 40 points too. I don't see an issue.

Mike Richards had 103 points in 157 games in his two good seasons with the Kings. That is 54 point pace over a full 82 games, and even by the time he got to LA he was already in a decline from his glory years.

In his prime years in Philly he had 332 points in 372 games including two seasons over a point-per-game, he was a Selke finalist and chosen for Team Canada in a best vs best.

Stoll is probably a better comparison.

Thanks Jesse.

I think it nails home the point that the Kings are looking for the right kind of player and not just the "flashy" player. Seems to be the philosophy they feel will make them a championship team in the long run.

Sometimes I just want some flash too tho.

You can get those players outside of the Top 5 of the draft. When you are picking in the Top 5 you should be looking at players that fill the 1C, 1D or even 1W boxes. I think most people would agree with that.

 

[Steve Zissou]

Almost. Seider likely -- Zegras, not so sure. Everyone seems to be mesmerized and taken in with his highlight puck handling and creativity. Maybe instead of spending huge amounts of time on magic tricks he could be spending time working on meat and potatoes stuff -- like defense and faceoffs. He's actually a significant liability 5 on 5 and he doesn't kill penalties (although that isn't unusual for a player his age).

An interesting clash of philosophies between the Ducks and Kings. Zegras has been put in a position to succeed -- 75% offensive zone starts and with little attention to D (+/- of -13 by far the worst on the Ducks). The Kings otoh expect their forwards to learn a more complete game. Who is right? We shall see...

Zegras was a +6 in his 1st year, this year thus far is a -11. I've watched him quite a bit this year, especially since The Sucks either play a team we will face in a day or two or face a team LA just played. I don't think he's a defensive liability or a 'significant liability' as you put it. He'll get better with age to help round out his game, as most young players eventually do. Same goes for Turc. He really needs to continue to get stronger to play a man's game in the NHL.

You know is a plus +10 this year on LA...? Olli Maata. Olli Freakin' Maata. +/- is a great stat, but it's not the end all be all. I think he all know this is obvious.

I still don't think comparing Zegras to Turcotte is fair since Turc has been derailed by multiple injuries and covid. That's not my point.

My point is simply that Zegras has 39 points thus far. That would make him the 2nd leading point scorer on our team. Our all-star Kempe has just 33 points to his 39.

Kopiptar 47
Zegras 39
Arvidsson 34
Kempe 33

Not sure why you are so consumed with his all-star appearance. But who cares...? Kids watch that crap.

But to deny that Zegras is nothing more than just a bag of magic tricks lets me know that you haven't watched him. He creates a ton of high danger scoring opportunities for his team many times in a single game and on a nightly basis. He's dangerous every time he touches the puck in the offensive zone. His stats also prove this.

Talked to Jim this morning...

Thanks, that helps clear the air a bit. I have to admit I was/am still surprised he called him a 3rd line center at best, esp. for being a #5 OA.

I think it nails home the point that the Kings are looking for the right kind of player and not just the "flashy" player. Seems to be the philosophy they feel will make them a championship team in the long run.

Sometimes I just want some flash too tho.

Non-flashy is quite ok. Turc and even Faber are future players who bring a ton of leadership and some day might even wear a letter.

 

[Kudelski37]

Mike Richards had 103 points in 157 games in his two good seasons with the Kings. That is 54 point pace over a full 82 games, and even by the time he got to LA he was already in a decline from his glory years.

In his prime years in Philly he had 332 points in 372 games including two seasons over a point-per-game, he was a Selke finalist and chosen for Team Canada in a best vs best.

Stoll is probably a better comparison.



You can get those players outside of the Top 5 of the draft. When you are picking in the Top 5 you should be looking at players that fill the 1C, 1D or even 1W boxes. I think most people would agree with that.

What were his two good seasons in LA? He had 44 points in 74 games the first cup year. He had 32 points in 48 games the following year. He had 41 points in 82 games the 2nd cup year. His last year with LA he had 16 points in 51 games. No combination of LA seasons produce your numbers.

His stats in Philly don't count if we are talking championship since they never won.

 

[Herby]

What were his two good seasons in LA? He had 44 points in 74 games the first cup year. He had 32 points in 48 games the following year. He had 41 points in 82 games the 2nd cup year. His last year with LA he had 16 points in 51 games. No combination of LA seasons produce your numbers.

His stats in Philly don't count if we are talking championship since they never won.

Richards was cooked for good after his hit by Bolland in the 2013 WCF. That was officially the end of him as anything more than a bottom line player.

In his two good seasons in LA (11/12 & 12/13) he played 157 total games and had 103 points.

2012- 94GP, 59 Points
2013- 63GP, 44 Points

Richards was the Kings 4th line center (and probably the worst player on the team) in the Kings 2014 run. He put up about 40 points that year, most of them coming early in the year when Sutter refused to take him off the 2nd line with Carter until after the calendar turn.

Richards was certainly more than a 40 point energy player during the Kings first run.

 

[Kudelski37]

Richards was cooked for good after his hit by Bolland in the 2013 WCF. That was officially the end of him as anything more than a bottom line player.

In his two good seasons in LA (11/12 & 12/13) he played 157 total games and had 103 points.

2012- 94GP, 59 Points
2013- 63GP, 44 Points

Richards was the Kings 4th line center (and probably the worst player on the team) in the Kings 2014 run. He put up about 40 points that year, most of them coming early in the year when Sutter refused to take him off the 2nd line with Carter until after the calendar turn.

Richards was certainly more than a 40 point energy player during the Kings first run.

No, that is literally what he did.

 

[Herby]

No, that is literally what he did.

He had 59 points in 94 games on a team that finished near the bottom of the league in scoring. How is that a 40 point pace? Once he was given an NHL caliber winger to play with he was much better, and had 15 points on 20 playoff games.

The next season he had 44 points in 63 games, again how is that a 40 point pace?

103 points in 157 games is not a 40 point pace, not sure what else to tell you.

 

[HookKing]

Zegras was a +6 in his 1st year, this year thus far is a -11. I've watched him quite a bit this year, especially since The Sucks either play a team we will face in a day or two or face a team LA just played. I don't think he's a defensive liability or a 'significant liability' as you put it. He'll get better with age to help round out his game, as most young players eventually do. Same goes for Turc. He really needs to continue to get stronger to play a man's game in the NHL.

You know is a plus +10 this year on LA...? Olli Maata. Olli Freakin' Maata. +/- is a great stat, but it's not the end all be all. I think he all know this is obvious.

I still don't think comparing Zegras to Turcotte is fair since Turc has been derailed by multiple injuries and covid. That's not my point.

My point is simply that Zegras has 39 points thus far. That would make him the 2nd leading point scorer on our team. Our all-star Kempe has just 33 points to his 39.

Kopiptar 47
Zegras 39
Arvidsson 34
Kempe 33

Not sure why you are so consumed with his all-star appearance. But who cares...? Kids watch that crap.

But to deny that Zegras is nothing more than just a bag of magic tricks lets me know that you haven't watched him. He creates a ton of high danger scoring opportunities for his team many times in a single game and on a nightly basis. He's dangerous every time he touches the puck in the offensive zone. His stats also prove this.



Thanks, that helps clear the air a bit. I have to admit I was/am still surprised he called him a 3rd line center at best, esp. for being a #5 OA.



Non-flashy is quite ok. Turc and even Faber are future players who bring a ton of leadership and some day might even wear a letter.

I love how you guys put words in my comments that were never there... So the guy scores 49 and gives up 59 sounds good to me. The reality is he really sucks at faceoffs and gets 75% offensive zone starts. Even Duck fans think he sucks at D and they may need another year from Getzlaf.

 

[Kudelski37]

He had 59 points in 94 games on a team that finished near the bottom of the league in scoring. How is that a 40 point pace? Once he was given an NHL caliber winger to play with he was much better, and had 15 points on 20 playoff games.

The next season he had 44 points in 63 games, again how is that a 40 point pace?

103 points in 157 games is not a 40 point pace, not sure what else to tell you.

You include playoff stats when the Kings were a high scoring team in 2012. Lame.

How about this? Richards scored 44 points in 2012 as a championship 2C and Lars Eller scored 38 points as a championship 3c in 2018. Where does Turcotte have to finish to be awesome in your eyes? Yes, regular season totals.

 

[DoktorJeep]

Kopitars -12 in his rookie year didn’t stop him from putting up 60 points and winning cups and selkes down the road.