Around the League Thread part V

[Herby]

So is the fact that.....100 years or so of pro sports....NOT ONE TEAM HAS EVER DONE WHAT YOU SUGGESTED THEY DO.......NOT ONE...... so give or take 75-100 teams in all sports......for a 100 years....what is that,

0-75,000?

I don’t really agree with them on this topic involving Kopitar.

But teams have traded superstars before and started over. The Ottawa Senators traded the guy who most hockey fans consider the best d-man of his era when he was 28 years old for a bunch of picks and prospects and essentially tore it down. Coming out of it 4 years later they are poised to enter a likely 7-8 year window with two huge pieces of their rebuild coming from that trade.

As for the other part, couldn’t answer what is the overwhelmingly most successful and proven way to develop players like QB? I only asked for either A, B or C

Still think it’s kind of a bad look for criticizing unorthodox moves in one thread and praising unorthodox moves in another.

 

[Statto]

Thomas - double shoulder surgeries - happened in the AHL where he rightfully should have been playing

Just a FYI, Thomas’ shoulder issues started in junior and IIRC from around, I think before, his draft year. I got that from his podcast so my source is pretty good

 

[Statto]

The Ottawa Senators traded the guy who most hockey fans consider the best d-man of his era when he was 28 years old for a bunch of picks and prospects and essentially tore it down.

I’m not getting involved in the wider debate however... Most of us laughed at San Jose for acquiring a player that was well past his best due to repeated injuries. It felt like overpayment at the time, to me at least, which it proved to be.

Edit: Cleaned up typos and/or auto correct issues. The auto correct/predictive text just works weird when using my iPad since moving to this new forum. It doesn’t recognise spaces properly, if I add a comma it deletes a character and so on. It’s only on here I have an issue.

 

[Herby]

I’m not getting us involved in the wider debate. Most of us laughed at San Jose for acquiring a player that was well past his best due to repeated injuries. It felt like overpayment at the time, to me at least, which it proved to be.

Well in fairness to Doug Wilson (who I think was GM for about 5 years to long).

1. Karlsson did not really have repeated injuries before the trade. He was actually one of the more durable players in the league considering how many minutes he played. He was still a superstar player in his prime.

2. No one could have foreseen that the pick was going to end up being #3 in the 2020 draft. San Jose had been a solid playoff team before the trade and ended up going to the conference finals the year after getting him. That pick ending up being #3 overall was pretty awful luck/circumstance for them.

3. No one could have foreseen Norris being this good. I saw Norris play a lot the season before he was traded to Ottawa. He had the shot which was always lethal, but not much else. I thought maybe he turns into a 30 goal type guy in the NHL. But a 45 goal pace at 22? No way. Credit to Ottawa who handled him perfectly (ahem Rob Blake) but I doubt they expected him to be this good either.

But yeah, I mean it's tough being a Kings fan and watching Barzal knowing we would have had him if not for a really bad trade. Imagine being a Sharks fan and knowing you could have had Stutzle *AND* Norris. I'm not sure I could watch Ottawa play.

 

[Statto]

Well in fairness to Doug Wilson (who I think was GM for about 5 years to long).

1. Karlsson did not really have repeated injuries before the trade. He was actually one of the more durable players in the league considering how many minutes he played. He was still a superstar player in his prime.

2. No one could have foreseen that the pick was going to end up being #3 in the 2020 draft. San Jose had been a solid playoff team before the trade and ended up going to the conference finals the year after getting him. That pick ending up being #3 overall was pretty awful luck/circumstance for them.

3. No one could have foreseen Norris being this good. I saw Norris play a lot the season before he was traded to Ottawa. He had the shot which was always lethal, but not much else. I thought maybe he turns into a 30 goal type guy in the NHL. But a 45 goal pace at 22? No way. Credit to Ottawa who handled him perfectly (ahem Rob Blake) but I doubt they expected him to be this good either.

But yeah, I mean it's tough being a Kings fan and watching Barzal knowing we would have had him if not for a really bad trade. Imagine being a Sharks fan and knowing you could have had Stutzle *AND* Norris. I'm not sure I could watch Ottawa play.

I agree on the picks completely.

My view is very much based on Karlsson, he never moved properly after that leg (ankle?) issue and had definitely lost something in his game. I never felt it was something he’d recover from as it looked like ‘mechanical‘ problem to me and it still does. On top of that Wilson was doubling down on a team that was already waaaaay too old and past it’s prime. It was always a terrible move because there was never going to be a pay-off, no matter how well Karlsson played.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

I don’t really agree with them on this topic involving Kopitar.

But teams have traded superstars before and started over. The Ottawa Senators traded the guy who most hockey fans consider the best d-man of his era when he was 28 years old for a bunch of picks and prospects and essentially tore it down. Coming out of it 4 years later they are poised to enter a likely 7-8 year window with two huge pieces of their rebuild coming from that trade.

As for the other part, couldn’t answer what is the overwhelmingly most successful and proven way to develop players like QB? I only asked for either A, B or C

Still think it’s kind of a bad look for criticizing unorthodox moves in one thread and praising unorthodox moves in another.

First, Ottawa hasn't one jack shit, then traded the players that got them there, 2nd. Karlsson WANTED OUT....

You realize he's arguing that the Kings should have traded Kopitar, Quick, and Doughty rather than resign them the YEAR AFTER they just won?

I did answer your question, you just don't seem to accept it, developing players is an INDIVIDUAL specific exercise......there is no one size fits all approach.

 

[KingsFan7824]

But teams have traded superstars before and started over. The Ottawa Senators traded the guy who most hockey fans consider the best d-man of his era when he was 28 years old for a bunch of picks and prospects and essentially tore it down. Coming out of it 4 years later they are poised to enter a likely 7-8 year window with two huge pieces of their rebuild coming from that trade.

Well in fairness to Doug Wilson (who I think was GM for about 5 years to long).

1. Karlsson did not really have repeated injuries before the trade. He was actually one of the more durable players in the league considering how many minutes he played. He was still a superstar player in his prime.

2. No one could have foreseen that the pick was going to end up being #3 in the 2020 draft. San Jose had been a solid playoff team before the trade and ended up going to the conference finals the year after getting him. That pick ending up being #3 overall was pretty awful luck/circumstance for them.

3. No one could have foreseen Norris being this good. I saw Norris play a lot the season before he was traded to Ottawa. He had the shot which was always lethal, but not much else. I thought maybe he turns into a 30 goal type guy in the NHL. But a 45 goal pace at 22? No way. Credit to Ottawa who handled him perfectly (ahem Rob Blake) but I doubt they expected him to be this good either.

But yeah, I mean it's tough being a Kings fan and watching Barzal knowing we would have had him if not for a really bad trade. Imagine being a Sharks fan and knowing you could have had Stutzle *AND* Norris. I'm not sure I could watch Ottawa play.

First you name just the trade. Ottawa just traded their best player and started over. It's normal.

At least you add some, context, later. But still, not enough. There was also that Karlsson was in his last year of a contract in 18-19. Also, Ottawa was the 2nd worst team in the league in 17-18. They also had fairly cheap owner. There was also questions as to whether or not Karlsson would re-sign in Ottawa. Said he liked it there, so assume that's true.

But the self imposed mental torture of the what if scenarios, I don't get it. Once something is done, it's done. You can't un-do a trade you had no control over to begin with, so why keep thinking about it? You can't go back and re-draft someone else 10 years later, so why dwell on it?

The Cup success though? Forget about it. We have to move on. You have to get rid of every player that won that thing. Ew. That was a long time ago. But a bad trade half a dozen years ago? Why wouldn't we talk about that forever? What if that trade didn't happen? Imagine what great things could be. Well what if they didn't win the Cup? Any book length posts anywhere on the board on that what if? How 11-12 was turning into a complete disaster for the franchise(until it wasn't)? What if the Richards trade was one of the worst in franchise history? Why think about that, they won? It's done. Exactly.

 

[lumbergh]

Still think it’s kind of a bad look for criticizing unorthodox moves in one thread and praising unorthodox moves in another.

hfboards in a nutshell.

 

[lumbergh]

.

But the self imposed mental torture of the what if scenarios, I don't get it. Once something is done, it's done. You can't un-do a trade you had no control over to begin with, so why keep thinking about it? You can't go back and re-draft someone else 10 years later, so why dwell on it?

The Cup success though? Forget about it. We have to move on. You have to get rid of every player that won that thing. Ew. That was a long time ago. But a bad trade half a dozen years ago? Why wouldn't we talk about that forever? What if that trade didn't happen? Imagine what great things could be. Well what if they didn't win the Cup? Any book length posts anywhere on the board on that what if? How 11-12 was turning into a complete disaster for the franchise(until it wasn't)? What if the Richards trade was one of the worst in franchise history? Why think about that, they won? It's done. Exactly.

Again, hfboards in a nutshell.

 

[Herby]

hfboards in a nutshell.

I agree.

I try and be consistent here. I think one other thing that is wildly inconsistent is the people who will say “stat watching” for a struggling prospect example (Turcotte) and then go crazy for a player lighting up the stat-sheet example (Kaliyev and Clarke). It’s a huge contradiction of opinion that is made all the time.

On this particular debate it just seems a bit odd to me how the attitude with unorthodox prospect development decisions (Byfield and Turcotte) is met with “I don’t give a crap if every team in the league would have done it different, I support the Kings decision” but then go make a post in another thread and say “No other team would have done it, so that is a reason I support the move”. It’s just a wild contradiction.

First you name just the trade. Ottawa just traded their best player and started over. It's normal.

At least you add some, context, later. But still, not enough. There was also that Karlsson was in his last year of a contract in 18-19. Also, Ottawa was the 2nd worst team in the league in 17-18. They also had fairly cheap owner. There was also questions as to whether or not Karlsson would re-sign in Ottawa. Said he liked it there, so assume that's true.

But the self imposed mental torture of the what if scenarios, I don't get it. Once something is done, it's done. You can't un-do a trade you had no control over to begin with, so why keep thinking about it? You can't go back and re-draft someone else 10 years later, so why dwell on it?

The Cup success though? Forget about it. We have to move on. You have to get rid of every player that won that thing. Ew. That was a long time ago. But a bad trade half a dozen years ago? Why wouldn't we talk about that forever? What if that trade didn't happen? Imagine what great things could be. Well what if they didn't win the Cup? Any book length posts anywhere on the board on that what if? How 11-12 was turning into a complete disaster for the franchise(until it wasn't)? What if the Richards trade was one of the worst in franchise history? Why think about that, they won? It's done. Exactly.

I was replying to a post that said that in 75 years of sports history that no team has traded a superstar and started over.

That is just patently false, and not just Erik Karlsson. Herschel Walker, Charles Barkley, Juan Soto, Jaromir Jagr are other examples.

Since I lean heavily on teams making smart, orthodox decisions I agree with him on this one. It’s very likely that no teams (maybe maybe 1-2 would have moved AK and/or DD). But just pointing out that it’s not something that has never been done, as he mentioned. He has supported strange decisions by the Kings (as discussed) so my guess is had the trade actually been made his tone would be different and he’d be supporting it right now.

 

[Choralone]

Regarding Kopitar: Correlation =/= causation. So, the Kings would have won another cup by now if they traded Kopitar? I wish I could hop multiverses like a Marvel character and compare the timelines.

 

[King'sPawn]

I agree.

I try and be consistent here. I think one other thing that is wildly inconsistent is the people who will say “stat watching” for a struggling prospect example (Turcotte) and then go crazy for a player lighting up the stat-sheet example (Kaliyev and Clarke). It’s a huge contradiction of opinion that is made all the time.

Eh, I'm guilty of this, but I still think I temper expectations.

Mostly because when things aren't good, I don't want to write a player off if they aren't somewhere yet.

But if a player does do well, it's easier to see things coming along.

I don't have a problem with "stat watching" as long as ridiculous conclusions aren't drawn or context is ignored.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

I agree.

I try and be consistent here. I think one other thing that is wildly inconsistent is the people who will say “stat watching” for a struggling prospect example (Turcotte) and then go crazy for a player lighting up the stat-sheet example (Kaliyev and Clarke). It’s a huge contradiction of opinion that is made all the time.

On this particular debate it just seems a bit odd to me how the attitude with unorthodox prospect development decisions (Byfield and Turcotte) is met with “I don’t give a crap if every team in the league would have done it different, I support the Kings decision” but then go make a post in another thread and say “No other team would have done it, so that is a reason I support the move”. It’s just a wild contradiction.


I was replying to a post that said that in 75 years of sports history that no team has traded a superstar and started over.

That is just patently false, and not just Erik Karlsson. Herschel Walker, Charles Barkley, Juan Soto, Jaromir Jagr are other examples.

Since I lean heavily on teams making smart, orthodox decisions I agree with him on this one. It’s very likely that no teams (maybe maybe 1-2 would have moved AK and/or DD). But just pointing out that it’s not something that has never been done, as he mentioned. He has supported strange decisions by the Kings (as discussed) so my guess is had the trade actually been made his tone would be different and he’d be supporting it right now.

you forgot the most relevant piece of that...oh f***...what a surprise....

....A YEAR AFTER WINNING THE CHAMPIONSHIP..........

Now....tell me....WHO has done that, in any major sport? Barring anything like financial issues....or players wanting out issues?

Cmon....go ahead.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

I agree.

I try and be consistent here. I think one other thing that is wildly inconsistent is the people who will say “stat watching” for a struggling prospect example (Turcotte) and then go crazy for a player lighting up the stat-sheet example (Kaliyev and Clarke). It’s a huge contradiction of opinion that is made all the time.

On this particular debate it just seems a bit odd to me how the attitude with unorthodox prospect development decisions (Byfield and Turcotte) is met with “I don’t give a crap if every team in the league would have done it different, I support the Kings decision” but then go make a post in another thread and say “No other team would have done it, so that is a reason I support the move”. It’s just a wild contradiction.


I was replying to a post that said that in 75 years of sports history that no team has traded a superstar and started over.

That is just patently false, and not just Erik Karlsson. Herschel Walker, Charles Barkley, Juan Soto, Jaromir Jagr are other examples.

Since I lean heavily on teams making smart, orthodox decisions I agree with him on this one. It’s very likely that no teams (maybe maybe 1-2 would have moved AK and/or DD). But just pointing out that it’s not something that has never been done, as he mentioned. He has supported strange decisions by the Kings (as discussed) so my guess is had the trade actually been made his tone would be different and he’d be supporting it right now.

On this one, it's only a wild contradiction, if you don't pay attention for f*** sake...

Again...when you are DEVELOPING PROSPECTS........Clue 1......YOU HAVE TO TAKE INDIVIDUAL INTO CONSIDERATION..... tell me.....If it was so cut and f***ing dry.,.....why did Boldy get called up and Rossi didn't?

 

[Schmooley]

you forgot the most relevant piece of that...oh f***...what a surprise....

....A YEAR AFTER WINNING THE CHAMPIONSHIP..........

Now....tell me....WHO has done that, in any major sport? Barring anything like financial issues....or players wanting out issues?

Cmon....go ahead.

Dodgers let Seager go a year after being the mvp winning the championship.
They look good without him

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

Dodgers let Seager go a year after being the mvp winning the championship.
They look good without him

Absolutely.....well...they replaced him with Turner.......did they trade Bellinger, Betts, Smith, Kershaw, as well?

Not a very good example...at all.

 

[cyclones22]

Dodgers let Seager go a year after being the mvp winning the championship.
They look good without him

The Dodgers are also the best drafting and developing franchise in the league. The Kings are fine in that regard though. They've been promoting and rewarding staff with new contracts. Right?

 

[Kingfan1967]

“Closer to the playoffs than the Cup” doesn’t really make sense to me. The last five years or so have really changed my mind about draft position and expectations. We hit on Kopitar and Doughty and then traded most of our first round picks for a decade. 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2016, and the two picks in 2012 and 2014 were 30th. I kind of forgot that a lot of picks just don’t pan out. From Doughty to Vilardi, which I would argue was the start of the rebuild, we had a single drafted first round pick (drafted before 30th pick) suit up for us: Derek Forbort.

All of that is to say that sometimes these guys don’t pan out. And other times, guys drafted later get better faster than others. In a redraft, Spence gets taken in the first round, no? Spence is better than a lot of guys in that 2019 draft, but it’s hard when looking at the sunk cost of a high draft pick and evaluating worth. Matias Micelli, taken three picks after Spence, looks a lot more promising than Turcotte right now. But Turcotte had a significantly higher draft slot… so in my mind he has the higher ceiling, and it would feel bad trading one for the other. That’s how it feels to me at least.

Maybe Turcotte’s not a great example. He’s been injured. Feels like all our high-end prospects have been injured though. I don’t want to let “what ifs” cloud my judgement anymore so I’ve been trying to do a lot better at evaluating what is, not what could be based on where players were drafted.

Back to the playoffs thing, I don’t think homegrown talent is necessarily the key. I think the real key is maximizing valuable contracts. That often means home grown, young talent on entry level or bridge deals, but not always. Smart veteran contracts, team-friendly deals, and cap retention are all valid tools at maximizing said value. I don’t think we’re truly cup contenders until Kopitar’s $10 million is down to a more manageable number, because I don’t think Kopitar (or even Doughty) are providing appropriate value at their current cap hits.

I do think we’re getting closer to winning the Cup though. And you obviously can’t do that without making the playoffs. We need a prospect or two to take a step forward, yes, but we also need the coaching staff to provide them an opportunity. But the Danault, Arvidsson, and Fiala moves were excellent, and all three guys are under 30. What’s not to like?

Kopitar's and Doughty's cap hits wouldn't look so bad if not for the cap stagnating for 6 years .

 

[KingsFan7824]

I was replying to a post that said that in 75 years of sports history that no team has traded a superstar and started over.

That is just patently false, and not just Erik Karlsson. Herschel Walker, Charles Barkley, Juan Soto, Jaromir Jagr are other examples.

Since I lean heavily on teams making smart, orthodox decisions I agree with him on this one. It’s very likely that no teams (maybe maybe 1-2 would have moved AK and/or DD). But just pointing out that it’s not something that has never been done, as he mentioned. He has supported strange decisions by the Kings (as discussed) so my guess is had the trade actually been made his tone would be different and he’d be supporting it right now.

Obviously franchise players have been traded forever, but there's usually many reasons for it. However, one of those reasons is rarely, you know, we're just going to start over. We can't win the whole thing, so we're just getting rid of this or that guy. The guys you list, the teams were terrible at the time of the trades, and/or ownership was cheap, or players wanted out, and whatever else. They weren't good, but realized not good enough, and then just started over.

The problem for the Kings, is that at no time after the Cup win in 2012, when a guy had to be re-signed, was the team awful at the time. Ownership has also been willing to spend money. Technically they didn't have to re-sign Doughty in the summer of 2018, but when the contract was done, they hadn't been the 2nd worst team in the league yet. Yes, Kopitar had an outlier season in 17-18, but they also finished with the fewest GA in the league. Then finished 22nd overall in GA in 18-19. They got swept, they weren't going to win, but the wheels hadn't fallen off the bus completely yet.

Had they just been bad in 17-18, or didn't want to give Doughty money, maybe he's out. But there was never a Walker or Soto moment for the Kings. By the time those moments did exist, well there's a hard cap, aging players, long contracts, and NMCs.

 

[Schrute farms]

I was replying to a post that said that in 75 years of sports history that no team has traded a superstar and started over.

That is just patently false, and not just Erik Karlsson. Herschel Walker, Charles Barkley, Juan Soto, Jaromir Jagr are other examples.

Since I lean heavily on teams making smart, orthodox decisions I agree with him on this one. It’s very likely that no teams (maybe maybe 1-2 would have moved AK and/or DD). But just pointing out that it’s not something that has never been done, as he mentioned. He has supported strange decisions by the Kings (as discussed) so my guess is had the trade actually been made his tone would be different and he’d be supporting it right now.

Except you (& etc.) are conveniently ignoring that part about winning a SC championship (twice). It's almost funny at this point.
Trading a superstar in his prime and starting over happens all the freaking time in professional sports. That's not the important aspect here. It's the fact that said player was the main leader (or even one of 2-3 if you want to lessen Kopi's efforts) in winning the championship for that team. Then again winning it two years later. The only championships at all for the franchise ever. Not to mention the LA factor where championships and names are the most important thing in getting media attention and the fair weather fans. When you can't get over the hump and win a championship, that's when trading your star becomes a viable option (for fans, owners, etc.) and changing course.

 

[KINGS17]

Regarding Kopitar: Correlation =/= causation. So, the Kings would have won another cup by now if they traded Kopitar? I wish I could hop multiverses like a Marvel character and compare the timelines.

No they merely would have been gone a different direction. Do you expect people to give you the hypothetical Kopitar trade tree and tell you where all the branches would have ended? I can't do it.

I can tell you that six or seven years later things have turned out pretty much as predicted, and that I would have preferred a different direction.

Dodgers let Seager go a year after being the mvp winning the championship.
They look good without him

Don't confuse this "person" with facts, because no matter how many examples you provide, it NEVER HAPPENED.

Am I using the "caps lock" key correctly?

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

Absolutely.....well...they replaced him with Turner.......did they trade Bellinger, Betts, Smith, Kershaw, as well?

Not a very good example...at all.

No they merely would have been gone a different direction. Do you expect people to give you the hypothetical Kopitar trade tree and tell you where all the branches would have ended? I can't do it.

I can tell you that six or seven years later things have turned out pretty much as predicted, and that I would have preferred a different direction.


Don't confuse this "person" with facts, because no matter how many examples you provide, it NEVER HAPPENED.

Am I using the "caps lock" key correctly?

Yea...no....again, not the best example of a team TEARING IT DOWN.....right after winning....but f***, what are details when you can obfuscate?

 

[Herby]

Eh, I'm guilty of this, but I still think I temper expectations.

Mostly because when things aren't good, I don't want to write a player off if they aren't somewhere yet.

But if a player does do well, it's easier to see things coming along.

I don't have a problem with "stat watching" as long as ridiculous conclusions aren't drawn or context is ignored.

The thing is, at least in North American feeder leagues (CHL and NCAA) offensive production is easily the biggest indicator of success for potential high-end players at the next level. Not every guy who scores a ton in those leagues ends up being a scorer in the NHL, but very few who don't score a ton end up being NHL scorers, So that is why the "stat watcher" comments to me are kind of funny whenever they are brought up, because if you analyze the data and compare it historically a 1st round pick who struggles offensively in the NCAA or CHL is usually cause for concern about his offensive ceiling. Like I was called a "stat watcher"** for pointing out that Turcotte had 1 goal in Big Ten play, to me that should have been a pretty huge red flag on offensive ceiling (and in hindsight it was). And it was a pretty large sample size, I think 19 games or so of his mostly toughest competition.

As far as context, I feel like sometimes there is a thin a line on context and excuses. You can go through almost any disappointing player and find supposed context to red flags. I remember saying on this board over a dozen years ago that Teubert was a bust because historically once a 1st round pick steps foot on ECHL ice his chances are being an NHL'er basically turns to 0. It was met with "context" that the Monarchs had "the best defense in the AHL" and it was unreasonable to expect him to make that team, again this was a player the Kings had taken with a #13 overall pick. Even when Teubert went back to the ECHL the next year, this time at 19 it was met with context about how he was going to be different.

Turcotte, it was just to me a lot of excuses. Kind of everyone else was blamed for the struggles at WI except for him. There was supposed injuries and illness, yet sandwiched between games where he was "injured or sick" and played pretty bad vs. Big Ten teams were 2 different series vs. Arizona St. and Nebraska-Omaha where he produced offensively. How can you be so sick and injured you look like ass vs. Michigan and Minnesota but between those 2 series you score a lot vs Arizona State? Let's be honest, it was just a player struggling to do anything offensively vs. good teams. And much like with Teubert and hitting ECHL ice, the history of Top 10 picks who aren't NHL regulars by the end of their D+4 is basically a graveyard of busts and disappointments. That is why I view this as a last chance year, it's unfortunate what has happened.

Vilardi it gets a bit more tricky and valid here, obviously the years away had an effect. But he has also been back now for 2.5 seasons where he hasn't been injured (as far as I know). So how much longer do we cling to the missed games as a teenager and just accept that maybe he is a AAAA player or a fringe NHL player? There have been other guys who missed time and it didn't completely derail their careers and prevent them from living up to draft capital used (Josh Norris as an example) and Kupari as well.

 

[unicornpig]

were comparing baseball to hockey now LOL

 

[King'sPawn]

were comparing baseball to hockey now LOL

Lombardi would be proud.