Around the League 2024-25 season

[bland]

The whole Wolf thing is just weird to me because they knew about him, he's a former JR King, they think he's great and amazing. He's still available 7th round. Wouldn't you just give the hometown kid a shot at that point? I mean, last pick and all. Unless there was intel that Lee was a homerun.

Better guess would be that they thought he would go undrafted and could be signed.

 

[King'sPawn]

TSN Top 50 Under 24

1. Jack Hughes
2. Connor Bedard
3. Macklin Celebrini
4. Tim Stutzle
5. Owen Power
6. Brock Faber
7. Matvei Michkov
8. Cole Caufield
9. Moritz Seider
10. Ivan Demidov
11. Jake Sanderson
12. Alex Nikishin
13. Wyatt Johnston
14. Leo Carlsson
15. Luke Hughes
16. Will Smith
17. Ryan Leonard
18. Artyom Levshinov
19. Zeev Buium
20. Matt Boldy
21. Lucas Raymond
22. Adam Fantilli
23. Alexis Lafreniere
24. Dustin Wolf
25. Juraj Slafkovsky
26. Seth Jarvis
27. Lane Hutson
28. Cutter Gauthier
29. Logan Stankoven
30. Sam Dickinson
31. Thomas Harley
32. Zayne Parekh
33. Yaroslav Askarov
34. Brandt Clarke
35. Logan Cooley
36. Matthew Knies
37. Dylan Guenther
38. Mason MacTavish
39. Trey Augustine
40. Jacob Fowler
41. Bennett Senecke
42. Cayden Lindstrom
43. Denton Mateychuk
44. Easton Cowan
45. Tij Iginla
46. Kaiden Guhle
47. Pavel Mintyukov
48. Tom Willander
49. Berkly Catton
50. Connor McMichael

People can pick apart who they think is to high, to low or who should or shouldn't be on the list. But this is the age group where the Kings a bunch of high picks and nobody can deny the ROI has been bad, and absolutely horrible when you factor in the best pick was traded for empty calories.

- Faber was clearly their crown jewel pick, and he is traded for a non-needle moving winger
- Blake had the realistic opportunity to draft #4, #8 and #20.
- #9, #11 and #21 were taken almost immediately after bad Kings picks
- #24 and #26 were pushed on messageboards as potential Kings picks (But how could Blake have known?)
- A good chunk of the rest could have potentially been drafted by the Kings with high picks in 2022 and 2023 had picks not been handed out like Halloween candy for black hole warriors like Fiala and Gavrikov.

For anyone here to young to remember being a Kings fan from 1994 to 2007, well you sadly have your own "Serious Hockey, Serious Fans" and "I play my best hockey when" era you can tell your kids about.

Though I know it's not your intent, but the statement of Kings option picks are a bit misleading.

Stutzle, Sanderson, and Jarvis were all from the same draft. The Kings could have only taken one.

And while he's not doing great at the moment, I'm still not convinced Byfield was a "bad" pick. Imagine Byfield with the free reign Stutzle had, and imagine Stutzle "needing to learn to check" like Byfield needed to. I just think we're overlooking or underestimating essential factors.

Turcotte hasn't worked out to his draft position either. But nobody was calling for Seider at 5th. Not you, me, or independent scouting services. People wanted Zegras, Caufield, Cozens, or Turcotte (others liked Dach and Byram, but they were already gone). It doesn't exonerate Blake, as ultimately it's the scouting staffs job to do. But Seider at 6th was Wheeler at 5th level shocking.

I just think there's a lot of hand-wringing over picks when the picks themselves have been defensible. I'm not sure why, after years of criticizing development decisions, there's this insinuation the biggest culprit is "bad picks."

The ROI has been bad, but comparing them to other players with different factors at their benefit is missing the big picture.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

Though I know it's not your intent, but the statement of Kings option picks are a bit misleading.

Stutzle, Sanderson, and Jarvis were all from the same draft. The Kings could have only taken one.

And while he's not doing great at the moment, I'm still not convinced Byfield was a "bad" pick. Imagine Byfield with the free reign Stutzle had, and imagine Stutzle "needing to learn to check" like Byfield needed to. I just think we're overlooking or underestimating essential factors.

Turcotte hasn't worked out to his draft position either. But nobody was calling for Seider at 5th. Not you, me, or independent scouting services. People wanted Zegras, Caufield, Cozens, or Turcotte (others liked Dach and Byram, but they were already gone). It doesn't exonerate Blake, as ultimately it's the scouting staffs job to do. But Seider at 6th was Wheeler at 5th level shocking.

I just think there's a lot of hand-wringing over picks when the picks themselves have been defensible. I'm not sure why, after years of criticizing development decisions, there's this insinuation the biggest culprit is "bad picks."

The ROI has been bad, but comparing them to other players with different factors at their benefit is missing the big picture.

There's also a different component of this, what I mean by that is, you said, imagine what Byfield could be ith the free reign that Stutzle had, but what is Stutzle right now? He's a good player, no doubt, and he can score, absolutely. He's also, a disaster on the defensive side, doesn't help that the entire team is a tire fire on the defensive side, but Stutzle won't win anything playing like that, so is that we are striving for? Offensively pleasing forward who couldn't piss on a fire in the defensive zone if they tried? Byfield has massive skill, just as much as Stutzle, but Stutzle has put it together faster, at the expense of defense, Byfield can grow into the offensive game, but Stutzle is basically a more gifted Zegras at this point.

 

[Sol]

Are you guys seriously still trying to cope by misrepresenting Stutzle and pretending that Byfield wasn’t a bad pick? Wtf


All these statements are true all at once
1. Stutzle is a far superior player
2. Byfield was a real bad pick at 2nd overall
3. Despite being a real bad pick he might be a decent NHLer.

 

[kilowatt]

Are you guys seriously still trying to cope by misrepresenting Stutzle and pretending that Byfield wasn’t a bad pick? Wtf


All these statements are true all at once
1. Stutzle is a far superior player
2. Byfield was a real bad pick at 2nd overall
3. Despite being a real bad pick he might be a decent NHLer.

Byfield's longest point-per-game stretch in his entire career is 22 points in 22 games. Tim Stutzle is over a point per game over his last three seasons. The comparison is over, Byfield isn't nearly as good. He's capable of controlling a game, but he doesn't do it at even half the frequency that Stutzle does. Hell, Byfield is below 0.5 points per game in his career. Pierre Luc Dubois is outscoring Byfield this year.

 

[SaltyElkHunter]

I listened to you f***ers and drafted him in fantasy. He’s been a mountain of disappointment after scoring an incredibly awesome Goal 1 time.

 

[Herby]

Though I know it's not your intent, but the statement of Kings option picks are a bit misleading.

Stutzle, Sanderson, and Jarvis were all from the same draft. The Kings could have only taken one.

And while he's not doing great at the moment, I'm still not convinced Byfield was a "bad" pick. Imagine Byfield with the free reign Stutzle had, and imagine Stutzle "needing to learn to check" like Byfield needed to. I just think we're overlooking or underestimating essential factors.

Turcotte hasn't worked out to his draft position either. But nobody was calling for Seider at 5th. Not you, me, or independent scouting services. People wanted Zegras, Caufield, Cozens, or Turcotte (others liked Dach and Byram, but they were already gone). It doesn't exonerate Blake, as ultimately it's the scouting staffs job to do. But Seider at 6th was Wheeler at 5th level shocking.

I just think there's a lot of hand-wringing over picks when the picks themselves have been defensible. I'm not sure why, after years of criticizing development decisions, there's this insinuation the biggest culprit is "bad picks."

The ROI has been bad, but comparing them to other players with different factors at their benefit is missing the big picture.

I think you mistake a bad pick and bad player as being the same thing. My opinion is that when you draft a guy #2 overall and he's not a star by his fifth season, it's probably a bad pick, even more so when the guy who went right after him and who we all spent months debating about looks well on his way to another 90 point season.

It gets back to the whole drafting a project vs. a more ready made thing. How much better will QB have to be than Stutzle when he reaches this mythical peak that guys like Emerson talk about that it comes close to making up what they have missed out from this bad pick? Although I think the truth is the Kings expected a lot more by now. The Kings management tells us now they drafted a long-term project with a #2 overall pick while at the same time trying to contend in a window with guys in their late 30's? They are incompetent, but are they really that incompetent?

On the other point, I did try and separate the players into a group that the Kings realistically could have taken (Stutzle, Caufield, Boldy) vs. one that were drafted right after but the Kings had no expectation of drafting (Seider, Sanderson, Raymond) to make it a more accurate representation

 

[King'sPawn]

I think you mistake a bad pick and bad player as being the same thing. My opinion is that when you draft a guy #2 overall and he's not a star by his fifth season, it's probably a bad pick, even more so when the guy who went right after him and who we all spent months debating about looks well on his way to another 90 point season.

It gets back to the whole drafting a project vs. a more ready made thing. How much better will QB have to be than Stutzle when he reaches this mythical peak that guys like Emerson talk about that it comes close to making up what they have missed out from this bad pick? Although I think the truth is the Kings expected a lot more by now. The Kings management tells us now they drafted a long-term project with a #2 overall pick while at the same time trying to contend in a window with guys in their late 30's? They are incompetent, but are they really that incompetent?

On the other point, I did try and separate the players into a group that the Kings realistically could have taken (Stutzle, Caufield, Boldy) vs. one that were drafted right after but the Kings had no expectation of drafting (Seider, Sanderson, Raymond) to make it a more accurate representation

I may be dense, but I still just think there are too many variables to call something a bad pick or bad player.

Is Byfield yielding yet what I hoped for, especially for a second overall? Absolutely not. And I'm disappointed in his season so far. I was hoping he would have bridged the gap. And he's not put it together yet.

But I attribute a lot of that to how he's been handled. We won't be able to experience an alternate universe of 'what if the Kings took Stutzle instead?' I'm not delusional to think Byfield would be definitely better, but I think Stutzle playing in an environment that complements his style of play better can't be overlooked.

After being played in a grinder role at center and struggled, he was moved to wing, upped his game, and got comfortable and was winning battles. Then they move him back to center and has to play the ice differently now. Should a 2nd overall pick be more flexible? In an ideal world, sure, but my general philosophy is - if you see a player beginning to thrive and grow in some conditions, keep those conditions.

Do I think Stutzle would be putting up more points on the Kings than Byfield? Certainly. Do I think he'd be at 23 points? Honestly no. I think the Kings would still be putting him either at Kopitar's wing or on the second line, and we'd hear Hiller talk about how points are nice, but you need to play defense, like he does with Clarke. So, maybe at around 16ish points and still more one-dimensional. Like the player everyone hoped to get out of Kevin Fiala.

Maybe that makes him a bad pick for the Kings, but until they have a more robust and flexible approach to development, a larger number of picks are going to be "bad picks."

 

[crassbonanza]

I may be dense, but I still just think there are too many variables to call something a bad pick or bad player.

Is Byfield yielding yet what I hoped for, especially for a second overall? Absolutely not. And I'm disappointed in his season so far. I was hoping he would have bridged the gap. And he's not put it together yet.

But I attribute a lot of that to how he's been handled. We won't be able to experience an alternate universe of 'what if the Kings took Stutzle instead?' I'm not delusional to think Byfield would be definitely better, but I think Stutzle playing in an environment that complements his style of play better can't be overlooked.

After being played in a grinder role at center and struggled, he was moved to wing, upped his game, and got comfortable and was winning battles. Then they move him back to center and has to play the ice differently now. Should a 2nd overall pick be more flexible? In an ideal world, sure, but my general philosophy is - if you see a player beginning to thrive and grow in some conditions, keep those conditions.

Do I think Stutzle would be putting up more points on the Kings than Byfield? Certainly. Do I think he'd be at 23 points? Honestly no. I think the Kings would still be putting him either at Kopitar's wing or on the second line, and we'd hear Hiller talk about how points are nice, but you need to play defense, like he does with Clarke. So, maybe at around 16ish points and still more one-dimensional. Like the player everyone hoped to get out of Kevin Fiala.

Maybe that makes him a bad pick for the Kings, but until they have a more robust and flexible approach to development, a larger number of picks are going to be "bad picks."

I think the big thing for me is that Stutzle is basically responsible for driving all of the offense. In his entire career the lowest he has been is 6th on the team in points, which was during his rookie season. Since then he has either been first or second in points. I think he likely would have benefited greatly from being a winger with Kopi and Kempe. When comparing situations it's good to look at all aspects and one of those is having quality teammates that can take the pressure off of a young player.

 

[Schmooley]

I may be dense, but I still just think there are too many variables to call something a bad pick or bad player.

Is Byfield yielding yet what I hoped for, especially for a second overall? Absolutely not. And I'm disappointed in his season so far. I was hoping he would have bridged the gap. And he's not put it together yet.

But I attribute a lot of that to how he's been handled. We won't be able to experience an alternate universe of 'what if the Kings took Stutzle instead?' I'm not delusional to think Byfield would be definitely better, but I think Stutzle playing in an environment that complements his style of play better can't be overlooked.

After being played in a grinder role at center and struggled, he was moved to wing, upped his game, and got comfortable and was winning battles. Then they move him back to center and has to play the ice differently now. Should a 2nd overall pick be more flexible? In an ideal world, sure, but my general philosophy is - if you see a player beginning to thrive and grow in some conditions, keep those conditions.

Do I think Stutzle would be putting up more points on the Kings than Byfield? Certainly. Do I think he'd be at 23 points? Honestly no. I think the Kings would still be putting him either at Kopitar's wing or on the second line, and we'd hear Hiller talk about how points are nice, but you need to play defense, like he does with Clarke. So, maybe at around 16ish points and still more one-dimensional. Like the player everyone hoped to get out of Kevin Fiala.

Maybe that makes him a bad pick for the Kings, but until they have a more robust and flexible approach to development, a larger number of picks are going to be "bad picks."

Points aside, Byfields play is concerning this year. Last year he was a beast on the walls and was stripping pucks and threading passes to Kopitar and Kempe. This year hes been really soft on the walls, hasnt won puck battles, and is lobbing feather passes that dont connect to his linemates. Took one step forward last year and two steps back this year.

 

[kingsfan28]

The whole Wolf thing is just weird to me because they knew about him, he's a former JR King, they think he's great and amazing. He's still available 7th round. Wouldn't you just give the hometown kid a shot at that point? I mean, last pick and all. Unless there was intel that Lee was a homerun.

You rarely find home runs in the 7th round, and I don't think that's what they were looking for with a high 7th [pick #188]. Every team has their list, Lee was BPA on the Kings and a massive longshot to make it drafted there, any player drafted there is. It sound like they didn't think he was going to be drafted and almost wasn't at all.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Crosby and Kyle Connor throwing more heat than any King this year

 

[ru4reals]

Byfield's longest point-per-game stretch in his entire career is 22 points in 22 games. Tim Stutzle is over a point per game over his last three seasons. The comparison is over, Byfield isn't nearly as good. He's capable of controlling a game, but he doesn't do it at even half the frequency that Stutzle does. Hell, Byfield is below 0.5 points per game in his career. Pierre Luc Dubois is outscoring Byfield this year.

When it rains it pours.