As critical as I am of the organization, and I know I'll get a lot of angry responses (not necessarily from you, but maybe)... but I think the perception of organization ineptitude is overstated.
The Kings, like all orgs, have some strengths and weaknesses. They are very good at churning out blue-collar players. It's why players like Laferriere, Turcotte, Anderson, etc grow to have successful and long NHL careers.
But the Kings also realize they need skill players. In wars of attrition, you're more likely to win with both will AND skill. So, they target players with raw talent. They interview the prospects, but kids also get coached for everything. They sound like they either have drive (or acknowledge they need to imptove effort). Teams only get limited exposure to these kids. And Yannetti emphasizes how important it is to get to know them.
Where the Kings fall short, in my opinion, is the rigidity of their process. Not everyone learns and grows the same. But we saw them give Laferriere regular time after putting in the effort, and they didn't paste him on the fourth line for three years. Maybe they're learning? Or adapting? I'm not sure.
I just think, in my heart of hearts, Kaliyev's struggles can't be prescribed to organization incompetence all on its own. And each incident SHOULD be looked at a case by case basis. Otherwise, we just assume everything will suck without identifying benchmarks for improvement.
It's like if we were to look at a goalie in net. The team lost 6-2. Three goals were because the goalie couldn't stop a beachball and three goals because the opposing team had multiple 3-on-0 breakaways. Sure, the goalie sucked, but it's dangerous to blame the other three goals on the goalie. Even if you think you solve one issue, you still probably lose the game 3-2 if you don't take an honest look at other aspects that went wrong.