Toggle sidebar

Podcast (Audio) ATKM Draft Analysis w/ Mark Yannetti

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Thank you for doing this for the fans, Jesse. I only didn't ask anything because I forwarded my questions to Hoven and didn't want to take away from the fans having the opportunity of a voice here.

Just wanted to give a thumbs up and appreciation for all you do, for what it's worth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gjwrams, Telos, Mattias and 4 others
All The Kings Men said:
I did not.
Click to expand...
Who’s your favorite player you ever drafted?

Who’s the one player you wish you drafted that you were in position to do so?

What player made you look like an accidental genius?

What’s your favorite junior arena to watch a game in?

What’s your favorite draft year of all time?

We’re you able to squeak any of mine in? Tried to make this easy to get across without explanation or any interpretation of the question itself. Some of the questions were pretty darn intricate.
 
SlowFatandOld said:
Who’s your favorite player you ever drafted?
Click to expand...
Yup.
SlowFatandOld said:
Who’s the one player you wish you drafted that you were in position to do so?
Click to expand...
Nope.
SlowFatandOld said:
What player made you look like an accidental genius?
Click to expand...
Nope.
SlowFatandOld said:
What’s your favorite junior arena to watch a game in?
Click to expand...
Yup.
SlowFatandOld said:
What’s your favorite draft year of all time?
Click to expand...
Nope.
SlowFatandOld said:
We’re you able to squeak any of mine in? Tried to make this easy to get across without explanation or any interpretation of the question itself. Some of the questions were pretty darn intricate.
Click to expand...
I tried to work as many as possible into conversations we were already having. Didn't wanna take his whole day and also wanted to spend time talking about specific kids from the draft.

Had to make hard decisions.

Editing now. Should be available at 5am Thursday morning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Telos, SmytheKing and SaltyElkHunter
All The Kings Men said:
Yup.

Nope.

Nope.

Yup.

Nope.

I tried to work as many as possible into conversations we were already having. Didn't wanna take his whole day and also wanted to spend time talking about specific kids from the draft.

Had to make hard decisions.

Editing now. Should be available at 5am Thursday morning.
Click to expand...
Can’t wait to listen
 
The Cernak response was phenomenal. Thanks, Jesse!

I'll put a pin in my Turcotte/Byfield icetime question for now. I guess he kind of did answer it in his response on how much the development team takes their input. I guess I am just curious to hear his personal thoughts on the immediate top 6 minutes vs. slow boil approach. With any luck, they'll both break out this year in the AHL and NHL respectively, and I won't care about the question anymore. :laugh:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tbrown33
Thanks Jesse! And for asking the Chroimiak question. I was actually thinking he may say early 2nd round...but it makes sense, that he'd prefer to not even think of 're-draft' ranking, until 4-5 years out. (but that's really safe and we could all do a re-draft 5 yrs out!)
I was hoping to hear him say where he's improved and if he will need 2 yrs in the AHL, or whatever. All good!

The Cernak thing...wow. I would have liked to hear why Dean thought getting Bishop was really necessary.
 
Last edited:
Axl Rhoadz said:
I thought it was insurance on Quick? Wasn't Quick injured that season? Dean was making another run...I don't see why this is such a head scratcher...
Click to expand...
Quick had returned to play the day before the deal, if I recollect and made 32 saves in a 4-1 win.

"Kings goalie Jonathan Quick, who injured his groin in the season opener on Oct. 12, returned to the lineup and made 32 saves in a 4-1 win against the Anaheim Ducks on Saturday"
 
  • Like
Reactions: LAKings88
It was a bad deal, but I think Dean's point is still valid in that Quick had a major injury, had been out for the season and had only just come back and played one game at that point. Clearly, Dean was hoping for more in the postseason and wanted insurance.

It was the wrong call, most spotted it then and still spot it now, but in my opinion, while the assets were mismanaged and you never want to lose anything for an ill return, I don't think losing Cernak was THAT big of a deal. I don't dislike Cernak, but he is also not that crazy of a loss and I am not even 100% sure he'd be top 4 on the Kings had he stayed here.
 
Last edited:
Peter James Bond II said:
Quick had returned to play the day before the deal, if I recollect and made 32 saves in a 4-1 win.

"Kings goalie Jonathan Quick, who injured his groin in the season opener on Oct. 12, returned to the lineup and made 32 saves in a 4-1 win against the Anaheim Ducks on Saturday"
Click to expand...
And? How many games had Quick played that season prior to coming back? Probably 5 or less ... it was insurance in case he injured his groin again.

It's easy to say it was a dumb trade now, but I can understand the reasoning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kingspiracy
Telos said:
It was a bad deal, but I think Dean's point is still valid in that Quick had a major injury, had been out for the season and had only just come back and played one game at that point. Clearly, Dean was hoping for more in the postseason and wanted insurance.

It was the wrong call, most spotted it then and still spot it now, but in my opinion, while the assets were mismanaged and you never want to lose anything for an ill return, I don't think losing Cernak was THAT big of a deal. I don't dislike Cernac, but he is also not that crazy of a loss and I am not even 100% sure he'd be top 4 on the Kings had he stayed here.
Click to expand...

He's a top 4 defenseman on a team that won back-to-back Stanley Cups. I'd say it is a safe assumption he would have become a top 4 defenseman on this blueline, especially if you view Matt Roy as a top 4 dman. Cernak is considerably better than him, hence his newly signed 8-year extension.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Herby and KingsOfCali25
I would have like the Kings to have gotten Pallot. He has great Cup experience and delivers big time in the playoffs. Also the Kings are going to get push around pretty easy because they really don't have much toughness and they are a small team player size.
 
Ziggy Stardust said:
He's a top 4 defenseman on a team that won back-to-back Stanley Cups. I'd say it is a safe assumption he would have become a top 4 defenseman on this blueline, especially if you view Matt Roy as a top 4 dman. Cernak is considerably better than him, hence his newly signed 8-year extension.
Click to expand...
I disagree, it is easy to say anyone is a god on a team that stacked as it covers for a lot. Their third liners are all going to earn $6M/year now...

I don't think he is bad, he is a good defender, but he is the weakest of the four, and had he stayed in LA, I don't think he would have developed and been utilized as a top 4 defenseman of the same status. I think he would maybe be #4 but would likely be in the group mixing around between 5-7 if he were still here at all is my assertion. I think that is more of a slight to LA than Cernak honestly but is just how I see it.

With Cernak, I don't see a very good stay-at-home defenseman or puck-mover/point-producer, even on a team as stacked as the Lightning. I see a decent rounded defenseman who isn't particularly specialized that can slot 4-6 on a few teams but needs a good partner. He had the luxury of being glued to Sergachev which is awesome, but since being there he hasn't played over 67 games or put up more than 18 points, and while he isn't soft or mistake-prone, I don't see him as being particularly hard to play against.

In the end, he is a good defenseman, I just don't see an amazing top 4 talent that was lost and feel that if he had stayed in LA he wouldn't be close to the position or status he enjoys now, so good for him, but I am not too broken up about the loss even though it was a pretty clear mistake by Dean to let him go for literally his own piece of mind for a few weeks.
 
bland said:
Budaj played his ass off to keep the Kings in it.
Click to expand...
And for some inexplicable reason, Sutter constantly threw him under the bus. Not exactly sure what bone he had to pick with him, but Sutter really made a point in many post-game press conferences to pin losses on Budaj. I don't recall him doing that with any other goalie here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ibleedkings, Telos, Kingspiracy and 2 others
Ziggy Stardust said:
And for some inexplicable reason, Sutter constantly threw him under the bus. Not exactly sure what bone he had to pick with him, but Sutter really made a point in many post-game press conferences to pin losses on Budaj. I don't recall him doing that with any other goalie here.
Click to expand...
Probably just Sutter being Sutter. He probably thought Budaj could absorb some of the abuse, being an older guy.
 
BringTheReign said:
The Cernak response was phenomenal. Thanks, Jesse!

I'll put a pin in my Turcotte/Byfield icetime question for now. I guess he kind of did answer it in his response on how much the development team takes their input. I guess I am just curious to hear his personal thoughts on the immediate top 6 minutes vs. slow boil approach. With any luck, they'll both break out this year in the AHL and NHL respectively, and I won't care about the question anymore. :laugh:
Click to expand...
@BringTheReign He talks about the Kings view on this in Hoven's interview. I' would assume his personal view is in line with the organizational view of "slow boiling" kids, much to the chagrin of some on this board. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom