bland
Registered User
- Jul 1, 2004
- 7,706
- 11,512
Nonsense.Revisionist history. Faber never, ever had the status of being the Kings' "best prospect".Giant recency bias to claim that retroactively, based on a single great season.
Nonsense.Revisionist history. Faber never, ever had the status of being the Kings' "best prospect".Giant recency bias to claim that retroactively, based on a single great season.
The question was where is the line on trade trees and deciding when it's relevant.
I would argue if the same general manager executed both trades in question within the same 12-15 month window it's fair to link the two as part of one "unbroken" transaction.
Lombardi traded Eric Belanger for Jack Johnson.
Llombardi traded Jack Johnson for Jeff Carter.
Lombardi did not turn Eric Belanger into Jeff Carter.
Someone who posts that conclusion would get appropriately laughed at, and I think you know that.Trade trees are fun but they remove all context.
For example could someone say Joe Nieuwendyk was dealt by the flames for Agostino, Hanowski, and Klimchuk?
well yes, it was his camelid doppelgangerLombardi traded Eric Belanger for Jack Johnson.
Llombardi traded Jack Johnson for Jeff Carter.
Lombardi did not turn Eric Belanger into Jeff Carter.
I started this by bringing up Muzzin. Pretty simple exercise and not "mental gymnastics" like @GoldenBearHockey stated.I can agree with that.
Once you get 3 or so degrees of separation, it's probably not inextricably linked.
But I'd say all the Petersen stuff thru Kuemper is inextricably linked, as is the movement of all the RHDs. They're 'related' in context if not an unbroken chain.
Thats nonsense not that many things happened between. It was not that long ago. The biggest thing that came from that trade in the end is people having to sit through that brutal Willie D season.Too many things happened between the Muzzin trade and the Grundstrom/Dubois trades for Burroughs/Kuemper trades for me to view it as one seemless transaction.
Just thinking about this "out loud"
Muzzin was traded for
Grundstrom, Durzi and a 1st
Who they picked isn't really relevant. They aquired opportunity.
As for Durzi and Grundstrom
You can't just hand wave away the contributions of those players while they were here as being non-existent just because they're no longer here.
The Muzzin trade brought 136 games, 12 goals and 65 points of Sean Durzi and 236 games, 40 goals and 67 points of Grundstrom AND two playoff appearances that both of those players contributed to. It also brought a first round pick which was used to draft a player that was then, arguably, poorly managed and was ultimately lost on waivers.
You can quibble about first round exits all you like but you don't get to pretend that trade didnt bring additional value other than future "Burroughs and Kuemper"
IN ADDITION (again just thinking out loud)
The fact that both Durzi and Grundstrom were signed to new contracts after having been acquired, to ME, makes a dividing line between the original acquisiton trade and the subsequent departure trades.
It's not an unbroken chain of hockey career the way the PLD trade in and trade out was.
Too many things happened between the Muzzin trade and the Grundstrom/Dubois trades for Burroughs/Kuemper trades for me to view it as one seemless transaction.
That's NOT to say that criticisms can't be levied. I just think they need to be more nuanced to have any real meaning.
I must be missing a post somehwere because I don't see the reference
But as far as where the line is I think it's more than fair to hold a current GM accountable for all his immediate moves.
This is a perfectly fair and reasonable way to look at things IMO.Just thinking about this "out loud"
Muzzin was traded for
Grundstrom, Durzi and a 1st
Who they picked isn't really relevant. They aquired opportunity.
As for Durzi and Grundstrom
You can't just hand wave away the contributions of those players while they were here as being non-existent just because they're no longer here.
The Muzzin trade brought 136 games, 12 goals and 65 points of Sean Durzi and 236 games, 40 goals and 67 points of Grundstrom AND two playoff appearances that both of those players contributed to. It also brought a first round pick which was used to draft a player that was then, arguably, poorly managed and was ultimately lost on waivers.
You can quibble about first round exits all you like but you don't get to pretend that trade didnt bring additional value other than future "Burroughs and Kuemper"
IN ADDITION (again just thinking out loud)
The fact that both Durzi and Grundstrom were signed to new contracts after having been acquired, to ME, makes a dividing line between the original acquisiton trade and the subsequent departure trades.
It's not an unbroken chain of hockey career the way the PLD trade in and trade out was.
Too many things happened between the Muzzin trade and the Grundstrom/Dubois trades for Burroughs/Kuemper trades for me to view it as one seemless transaction.
That's NOT to say that criticisms can't be levied. I just think they need to be more nuanced to have any real meaning.
I get that i do, but as much as I hate on Blake for dealing Vialrdi to bring in PLD, I at least am glad they realized the sunk cost and moved PLD before his NMC kicked in. Even if he does well in Washington, from a risk stand point, it was a good move. However on paper it now looks like Vilardi, Kupari and a pick were moved for Kuemper. Not really the case was the main point I was getting at.
I feel MUCH more confident in my ability to project young defensemen than I am at forwards. And to hell with goalies, that shit takes a decade to get a good read.There definitely were 2-3 Kings posters here that were WAY higher on Faber than the 'general public/media'....and sang his praises all the time as future star.
That's the crux of the situation. The individual names don't matter, it's their business model and the intent of the moves that have been the problem. This regime cannot make coherent plans, and then they exacerbate the problem with inept development and talent evaluation. It's been a series of poor decisions and poor execution from the start.The org has teetered between young assets and getting booted in the first round. All those pieces were acquired and moved in Blake's tenure. So, in the context of Blake's tenure, that is what he got out of the pieces.
We can't even say a GM had a different direction and vision to lessen the sting.
Blake's moves up to this point in his tenure has produced mediocre at best results. Feel free to celebrate the arrival and departure of pieces, but by now people are understandably expecting Blake's moves to actualize into some semblance of playoff success.
Did the trade bring more than Burroughs and Kuemper? Sure. Is it measurable in value or playoff performance? Not anything I'd argue.
Revisionist history. Faber never, ever had the status of being the Kings' "best prospect".Giant recency bias to claim that retroactively, based on a single great season.
Overall, this is a steal of a deal for Minnesota. Brock Faber is a Minnesota kid who left his home state to play for the USNTDP. After two solid years there, he returned home to play for the University of Minnesota, where he has spent the past two seasons.
Faber was named the Big Ten Defensive Player of the year and a first team all-star and the accolades continued with an appearance for Team USA in the Olympics.
I'm guessing you will say Byfield was better
Prospect Info: - 2021 Los Angeles Kings Prospect Rankings #37
Rank. Name, Pos (%), change from last year 1. Quinton Byfield, F (98.6%), +0 2. Brandt Clarke, D (43.3%), NR 3. Alex Turcotte, F (69.9%), +0 4. Arthur Kaliyev, F (94.1%), +1 5. Brock Faber, D (44.6%), +9 6. Rasmus Kupari, F (67.1%), +3 7. Akil Thomas, F (35.4%), +4 8. Samuel Fagemo, F (47.5%)...forums.hfboards.com
1. Quinton Byfield, F
2. Brandt Clarke, D
3. Alex Turcotte, F
4. Arthur Kaliyev, F +1
5. Brock Faber, D +9
We voted him 5th best prospect, in the Summer of 2021. Up 9 spots from 2020.
This was BEFORE he was named B10 DPOTY and selected to the Olympics. If we had done a poll in 2022 before the trade for sure he would have been voted one of our top prospects.
how do i find the trade thread from then? I am curious what I wrote hahaHad we done a poll in 2022, Faber probably would've been considered the Kings 3rd best prospect behind Byfield and Clarke.
But he would have got #1 votes from a few posters around here.
I think the price LA paid for Fiala was fair value ON PAPER at the time. That doesn't make it a good trade though.
Bland has been right the entire time. He deserves credit for that.
I said multiple times Faber's development reminded a bit of Shea Weber; 2nd round pick known for defense, who's extremely dedicated, and gets better and better each year. Then before you know it he's a surprise top Dman. (Obviously the two are very different players)
When the trade went down, I didn't have much of an issue with the trade itself, moreso I felt the Kings should have still been in rebuild mode as opposed to trying to "win now". I felt the same way about the Danault signing.