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

[Raccoon Jesus]

@Herby @Raccoon Jesus
The vast majority of posters fall in love with prospects: that goes for this entire website and not just the Kings forum.

The truth is that most of them are like a car: it will never be worth as much as the purchase price once you drive it off the lot and many of these prospects won't be worth as much the further away you get from the draft.

The higher the pick, the higher the hopes and the longer the torch is carried. When that gets coupled with the common phenomenon of trade proposals that feature giving away spare parts for legit assets in return, you see a lot of pushback on trading guys like Vilardi or Turcotte with the legit asset coming back receiving negative critiques of his game while the struggling prospect gets the rose colored glasses.

It's easy for us to say what we think should happen as we all have lifetime contracts as armchair GMs on HF but that isn't the case for an NHL GM. While I agree that Miller is probably not the guy to target due to age/contract, I disagree with the notion to continue to hold all these guys to see what happens.

I likened the players to stocks in an earlier Turcotte discussion and said his stock has never been as high as draft night and that is completely true. Spence was mentioned earlier in this thread and he's an example of someone whose stock has never been higher but, of course, if Blake whiffed on him then he is only whiffing on a 4th round pick. Turcotte and Vilardi stock had a high purchase price and have only been negative returns and Blake is going to need to figure out if he should cash out into a safer stock and if the rest of the prospect portfolio returns allow for it.

If he doesn't, he could wind up holding these stocks until they are basically worthless. Lombardi did the same with Hickey but the greatness of Doughty, the awesome Martinez pick (95th OA just like Spence), Voynov and the Muzzin signing made the Hickey miss irrelevant. If Clarke is a stud, Blake will be pretty set on defense. Byfield being a stud could make missing on Vilardi and Turcotte irrelevant but you can't just let them depreciate into nothing like Hickey.

You generally have to give to get but it is up to Blake to know better than another team's GM what the projection is for Kings prospects. That's when you get something like O'Sullivan for Williams.

I'm definitely not advocating to just hold everything. We have too many assets in terms of prospects AND picks and quite a few are redundant.

I DO think we're in a spot where Turcotte and Vilardi at least are worth more to the Kings than anyone else. We don't need any more 'just a guy's, we have plenty and have proven even without a million swings we can generate NHLers like crazy. We need blue chip, we need quality. It's unlikely we'll get something back for Vilardi or Turcotte--even with a sweetner--that fits the bill. In the case of either of those two, even at a loss, it's probably better to hold them and see if they can achieve potential since everyone else sees what we're seeing. Unless someone is absolutely in love and can give us similar back.

We DO need to move quantity for quality, or even quality for quality, but definitely NOT quality for quantity. That's where I'm at on Turcotte Vilardi Byfield Clarke. Partially because I'm higher on them than several of you guys are, but also because I can't fathom who would look at those pieces and return quality.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

I'm definitely not advocating to just hold everything. We have too many assets in terms of prospects AND picks and quite a few are redundant.

I DO think we're in a spot where Turcotte and Vilardi at least are worth more to the Kings than anyone else. We don't need any more 'just a guy's, we have plenty and have proven even without a million swings we can generate NHLers like crazy. We need blue chip, we need quality. It's unlikely we'll get something back for Vilardi or Turcotte--even with a sweetner--that fits the bill. In the case of either of those two, even at a loss, it's probably better to hold them and see if they can achieve potential since everyone else sees what we're seeing. Unless someone is absolutely in love and can give us similar back.

We DO need to move quantity for quality, or even quality for quality, but definitely NOT quality for quantity. That's where I'm at on Turcotte Vilardi Byfield Clarke. Partially because I'm higher on them than several of you guys are, but also because I can't fathom who would look at those pieces and return quality.

I think if the right deal comes around, you can't afford to be gunshy by, what if's.

If Team A comes around and offers a 25-29 year old shooter......contract be damned....(assuming it fits in etc) and wants our next 2 1sts, Turcotte, and a combination of Walker, Grans, Durzi, Moveare, Vilardi etc, I think you have to take that....I think PHI fits in that mold with Konecky, CHI maybe with Debrincat.... it's not a long list at all...

 

[Trash Panda]

Trading prospects for high-cost talent entering its 30’s before an 8 year extension even takes place is a fools errand.

If we are talking about a guy in the age range of Danault or Forsberg, maybe it’s a different conversation.

JT miller ain’t it.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

Trading prospects for high-cost talent entering its 30’s before an 8 year extension even takes place is a fools errand.

If we are talking about a guy in the age range of Danault or Forsberg, maybe it’s a different conversation.

JT miller ain’t it.

Danault....29 years old, YES LETS GO....

JT Miller...29 years old...nope, too old.

 

[LAKings88]

Wrong thread

 

[Herby]

Trading prospects for high-cost talent entering its 30’s before an 8 year extension even takes place is a fools errand.

If we are talking about a guy in the age range of Danault or Forsberg, maybe it’s a different conversation.

JT miller ain’t it.

Danault and Miller are both 1993 born players.
Forsberg is a 1994 born player.

Is it that big a difference?

 

[Trash Panda]

Danault and Miller are both 1993 born players.
Forsberg is a 1994 born player.

Is it that big a difference?

Considering that any extension for Miller wouldn’t come into effect until 23-24, and it’s likely going to be a big one, yes.

Age & contractual obligation are absolutely a factor in the statement that I made, and stand by.

 

[bsu]

@Herby @Raccoon Jesus
The vast majority of posters fall in love with prospects: that goes for this entire website and not just the Kings forum.

The truth is that most of them are like a car: it will never be worth as much as the purchase price once you drive it off the lot and many of these prospects won't be worth as much the further away you get from the draft.

The higher the pick, the higher the hopes and the longer the torch is carried. When that gets coupled with the common phenomenon of trade proposals that feature giving away spare parts for legit assets in return, you see a lot of pushback on trading guys like Vilardi or Turcotte with the legit asset coming back receiving negative critiques of his game while the struggling prospect gets the rose colored glasses.

It's easy for us to say what we think should happen as we all have lifetime contracts as armchair GMs on HF but that isn't the case for an NHL GM. While I agree that Miller is probably not the guy to target due to age/contract, I disagree with the notion to continue to hold all these guys to see what happens.

I likened the players to stocks in an earlier Turcotte discussion and said his stock has never been as high as draft night and that is completely true. Spence was mentioned earlier in this thread and he's an example of someone whose stock has never been higher but, of course, if Blake whiffed on him then he is only whiffing on a 4th round pick. Turcotte and Vilardi stock had a high purchase price and have only been negative returns and Blake is going to need to figure out if he should cash out into a safer stock and if the rest of the prospect portfolio returns allow for it.

If he doesn't, he could wind up holding these stocks until they are basically worthless. Lombardi did the same with Hickey but the greatness of Doughty, the awesome Martinez pick (95th OA just like Spence), Voynov and the Muzzin signing made the Hickey miss irrelevant. If Clarke is a stud, Blake will be pretty set on defense. Byfield being a stud could make missing on Vilardi and Turcotte irrelevant but you can't just let them depreciate into nothing like Hickey.

You generally have to give to get but it is up to Blake to know better than another team's GM what the projection is for Kings prospects. That's when you get something like O'Sullivan for Williams.

I made a post just like this on the Ducks forum the other day. After Zellweger and McTavish we have a lot of good prospects but yeah... I'd trade them for established talent without regret. Cheers on the post.

 

[crassbonanza]

Trading prospects for high-cost talent entering its 30’s before an 8 year extension even takes place is a fools errand.

If we are talking about a guy in the age range of Danault or Forsberg, maybe it’s a different conversation.

JT miller ain’t it.

You do know that Danault is entering his 30's right?

Edit: hadn't seen the other replies

 

[Trash Panda]

You do know that Danault is entering his 30's right?

Edit: hadn't seen the other replies

Signed to 5 more years at a reasonable dollar amount.

If the kings can lock up JT to a contract in that range, it changes the conversation for sure.

 

[King'sPawn]

Danault and Miller are both 1993 born players.
Forsberg is a 1994 born player.

Is it that big a difference?

What prospects did we trade for Danault, and who would we trade for Forsberg?

 

[crassbonanza]

Signed to 5 more years at a reasonable dollar amount.

If the kings can lock up JT to a contract in that range, it changes the conversation for sure.

I mean, Danault signed a 6 year deal, the max that JT could sign is a 7 year deal. We are not talking about a huge difference here.

 

[apocalypse]

Trading prospects for high-cost talent entering its 30’s before an 8 year extension even takes place is a fools errand.

If we are talking about a guy in the age range of Danault or Forsberg, maybe it’s a different conversation.

JT miller ain’t it.

I agree that JT Miller isn't it. We will need a highly skilled winger/center down the road. Vilardi might be that guy, but who knows, it's too early to tell. These playoffs and next season will reveal what we should do.

 

[Trash Panda]

I agree that JT Miller isn't it. We will need a highly skilled winger/center down the road. Vilardi might be that guy, but who knows, it's too early to tell. These playoffs and next season will reveal what we should do.

A high-cost acquisition for a glaring hole in the roster is going to happen, and we just have to hope as a fanbase that the wad isn’t shot for something like JT miller.

I’d gladly pony up more, for a better fit.

 

[Trash Panda]

I mean, Danault signed a 6 year deal, the max that JT could sign is a 7 year deal. We are not talking about a huge difference here.

7 years not kicking in until the end of next season, at what will assuredly be a higher dollar amount.

 

[Herby]

What prospects did we trade for Danault, and who would we trade for Forsberg?

He didn't mention anything about prospects, he mentioned the age of the players.

Also, are you really losing sleep over losing Durzi, Turcotte and a couple of picks? The Kings still have a ton of young RHD and young secondary forwards. What they don't have is a 1st line forward.

 

[crassbonanza]

7 years not kicking in until the end of next season, at what will assuredly be a higher dollar amount.

I guess I misunderstood your comment then, I just read where you said you would consider JT if he was in the same range as Danault.

 

[Trash Panda]

I guess I misunderstood your comment then, I just read where you said you would consider JT if he was in the same range as Danault.

It was my omission.

In my mind, contractual obligations were implied, but after a few celebratory barley pops, I neglected to type that thought out.

Playoffs baby!

 

[kings11]

Danault and Miller are both 1993 born players.
Forsberg is a 1994 born player.

Is it that big a difference?

Nope but what is you ask…. Two are UFA

 

[King'sPawn]

He didn't mention anything about prospects, he mentioned the age of the players.

Also, are you really losing sleep over losing Durzi, Turcotte and a couple of picks? The Kings still have a ton of young RHD and young secondary forwards. What they don't have is a 1st line forward who is going to score 100 points.

He literally started the paragraphs with "trading prospects..."

It's trading prospects for a guy who has one year left on his contract before needing to be re-signed, will want a huge contract, but won't have many more 100-point seasons, if any.

Is it possible that some people want to be smarter about trading prospects and see what the market brings?

 

[Herby]

He literally started the paragraphs with "trading prospects..."

It's trading prospects for a guy who has one year left on his contract before needing to be re-signed, will want a huge contract, but won't have many more 100-point seasons, if any.

Is it possible that some people want to be smarter about trading prospects and see what the market brings?

We aren’t trading big time prospects here. No one wants to trade Byfield or Clarke for a 29 year old. But what if no other elite scorer is an option this summer? Or what if a younger option means trading Byfield. Would you be ok with moving Byfield in a deal for Barzal?

Why will things be different this year than years passed with UFA? Guys with multiple options very rarely choose extensive travel and 13% state income tax.

Can we afford to not address this again this coming offseason?

 

[Docgonzo]

Funny, the player id keep an eye @Herby already mentioned. If they go out early again I’d take a shot at Marner, not many teams have assets and cap space to afford him. And he’s skilled and decent defensively.

Trade for Marner, add Nichuskin for the 3rd line as a ufa.

Kempe-Kopitar-Marner
Moore-Danault-Arvidsson
Nichuskin-Byfield-Kaliyev
Lemieux-Lizotte-Kupari

 

[Schmooley]

Funny, the player id keep an eye @Herby already mentioned. If they go out early again I’d take a shot at Marner, not many teams have assets and cap space to afford him. And he’s skilled and decent defensively.

Trade for Marner, add Nichuskin for the 3rd line as a ufa.

Kempe-Kopitar-Marner
Moore-Danault-Arvidsson
Nichuskin-Byfield-Kaliyev
Lemieux-Lizotte-Kupari

Thats a heck of a lineup!

 

[King'sPawn]

We aren’t trading big time prospects here. No one wants to trade Byfield or Clarke for a 29 year old. But what if no other elite scorer is an option this summer? Or what if a younger option means trading Byfield. Would you be ok with moving Byfield in a deal for Barzal?

Why will things be different this year than years passed with UFA? Guys with multiple options very rarely choose extensive travel and 13% state income tax.

Can we afford to not address this again this coming offseason?

The Kings need to get their youth to take over sooner rather than later. If they don't, then it doesn't matter who they trade for. So, yes, they actually need to be okay with not addressing this if the price is wrong.

We saw Vilardi have a setback after a good showing for 10 games his rookie season. What if they'd benefit more from depth because another rookie has a setback?

 

[MBH]

The Kings need to get their youth to take over sooner rather than later. If they don't, then it doesn't matter who they trade for. So, yes, they actually need to be okay with not addressing this if the price is wrong.

We saw Vilardi have a setback after a good showing for 10 games his rookie season. What if they'd benefit more from depth because another rookie has a setback?

Vilardi was fine last year.
The problem was this year. The Kings f***ed him over.