Around the league part 2

[bland]

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.

 

[Schrute farms]

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.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

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.

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.

 

[King'sPawn]

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?

Someone who posts that conclusion would get appropriately laughed at, and I think you know that.

Declaring absence of context as if it's not something people have factored into their arguments is reductive and disingenuous.

 

[tny760]

Lombardi traded Eric Belanger for Jack Johnson.
Llombardi traded Jack Johnson for Jeff Carter.

Lombardi did not turn Eric Belanger into Jeff Carter.

well yes, it was his camelid doppelganger

 

[BigKing]

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.

I started this by bringing up Muzzin. Pretty simple exercise and not "mental gymnastics" like @GoldenBearHockey stated.

Muzzin traded for a 1st round pick (Bjornfot), Grundstrom and Durzi.

Bjornfot lost on waivers for nothing.
Grundstrom for Burroughs.
Durzi for a pick that was flipped as part of PLD.
PLD for Keumper.

I mean, that's not even rhythm mental gymnastics. The Muzzin trade tree is short. The remnants of it that are on the current roster are Burroughs and Keumper and it didn't take a bulletin board and red yarn to piece it together.

Now, if we are throwing Vilardi etc...in to it when referencing PLD, then we are getting deeper. As far as I'm concerned though, this is the result of the Muzzin deal at present.

 

[All The Kings Men]

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.

 

[Schmooley]

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.

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.
They traded Muzzin and right after went out and brought in guys like Edler and Maatta. Both those guys actually kept the 1st rounder from the trade in Bjornfot out of the lineup.
Muzzins closest replacement in Gavrikov was brought in too soon and it cost a first round pick and third round pick. And they had to trade more to clear cap to resign him after.
Trading Muzzin was the right move at the time but what they did after made less sense.

 

[King'sPawn]

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.

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.

 

[All The Kings Men]

I went ahead and bolded, underlined and italicized the part where I said too many things had happened FOR ME to think of it as one unbroken transaction.

I also said it didn't mean criticisms weren't valid but that I would need more nuance for them to be particularly meaningful but I guess that was clearly well... I'll stop while I'm behind.

 

[YP44]

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.

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.

 

[Statto]

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.

This is a perfectly fair and reasonable way to look at things IMO.

The nuance is very important and for me the most valuable piece was the 1st round pick. So (for me at least) the bigger issue is where that ended up. Grundstom had opportunity here and I think in general he was managed Ok, but in the end the path he took ended up in a trade for that was about right for his value. Durzi out performed his value as it was when he was acquired, but it was 100% correct we moved him IMO. The question there is the value. It was probably little low and I felt maybe add a 3rd rounder to what we received. He’d only have gotten a 1st round pick if he was moved at the TDL. Obviously hindsight it looks worse value wise than it was at the time but he was also in a situation (in AZ) where his flaws didn’t matter and he grew in that environment.

Like you (I think this is how you are looking at it) what happened with the pick is separate from the trade as it bought opportunity. It’s the same with picks we trade away that get used on good players and people complain. It’s a huge assumption that we’d have picked the same player and equally that the players development path is the same.

So we used that ‘opportunity’ to draft a decent prospect IMO. In general we develop D well, but screwed the pooch with TB. However, I agree it was a waste of an asset because of that, we ruined the player with how he was developed. I’d be more forgiving of it had they handled him well and it just didn’t work out.

Ultimately the reason I feel this is being focused on is the PLD trade as just another way to question it, complain about it. It was a horrible, horrible trade… with his play/contract it would have been awful as a FA signing. A lot of GM’s would have lost their jobs for how that aspect turned out… forget the rest.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

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.

Totally fair. I guess I was also--because of a previous post I made--looking at it less as a trade TREE and more a raw in vs out...like here's all that was moved and here's what's left to show for it.

 

[bland]

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.

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.

I played defense forever, it's my frame of reference, I get it and understand what the players are trying to accomplish. I had zero problem pumping that kid up, he was about as a guaranteed a success as you will ever see. His reads - not just his reactions - but his reads that put him into the best position to react are the best I have seen since Doughty was a phenom. It's such a rare ingredient, a player that can control the flow of the game from the backend. Players like that are a step closer to a championship level team, and they shouldn't be dealt for a quick boost that sputters when it matters.

 

[bland]

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.

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.

 

[Herby]

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.

Only to people that were going off draft position. I'm guessing you will say Byfield was better, but Faber has been better than Byfield every season since they were drafted.

This is not a "single great season", he has had multiple great seasons since being drafted. He was B10 freshman of the year and then followed it up by winning back to back B10 defenseman of the year awards, beating out a #1 overall pick (Power) and a #4 overall pick (Hughes). Along the way also starring in the Olympics as a teenager and multiple WJC's. He was every bit at the level of players like Power and Hughes as prospects and showed it last year, to say otherwise is, IMO just totally incorrect.

 

[Herby]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1818715851605819452

The dream is over. Won't see him in LA until the jersey retirement ceremony.

 

[johnjm22]

What the Kings, Wild get in the big Kevin Fiala trade

The Los Angeles Kings and Minnesota Wild kicked off trade season Wednesday with a big Kevin Fiala swap. Here's a look at what both teams get out of the deal.

www.sportsnet.ca

Here's a Sportsnet article from the day of the trade:

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.

 

[johnjm22]

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.

 

[Faterson]

I'm guessing you will say Byfield was better

Of course. Byfield was always considered the Kings' best prospect since being drafted. And it may still turn out that way.

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.

One of them, sure. Definitely not "the Kings' no. 1 prospect", as is being repeatedly claimed here, in denial of reality back then.

 

[kingsboy11]

 

[johnjm22]

Had 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.

 

[AbsentMojo]

#:vomit:

 

[YP44]

Had 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.

how do i find the trade thread from then? I am curious what I wrote haha

 

[Chazz Reinhold]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1819429171539669265