They get--and deserve--all the credit in the world for the run of Simmonds/Voynov/Clifford/Toffoli but they shouldn't get a free pass for putting up a zero ever since. The string of zeroes at this point is longer than the four years of hits that, quite frankly, seems like a decade ago. Oh wait...it is!
I think we agree though that the goal posts get moved on this constantly. I don't have ill-will towards the scouting department but, just like Kopitar this season, criticism when deserved is not something to shy away from.
Youth and productive ELC players are basically required these days to be competitive. Not having 1st round picks hurts, but the Kings haven't seemed to draft anyone since Pearson that can have a positive impact quickly. The rookies that made the team out of camp last season were drafted in 2009 and 2010. This team needs some solid production from the 2013 and '14 drafts in Brodz and Kempe next season or it will be another long season. That '13 draft is a disaster if Brodz doesn't pan out.
Who knows though, right? New system, management, philosophy and maybe some of these meh guys become better fits. That's kind of the issue I have with the scout apologists: we can write-off a draft as garbage but then it will be "So 2013 was bad but let's wait and see what Clague can do" so they are always just around the corner from redemption. For me, how many bad drafts need to be strung together before the benefit of the doubt is taken away? It's gone for me at this point: I need to see some results as I can no longer give everyone a pass because they drafted well 7-10 years ago.
But that's the thing--even though it was 4 years ago, many of the post-1st-round-picks are just now trying to find their way in the pro game if they make it at all. Hell, just look at the names drafted all around Zykov--Bigras, Erne, De la Rose, Fucale, Hagg, Petan, Sorensen...etc--how many of them have had an impact? Precious few are sniffing the NHL. Like I said, I get what everyone's saying, because especially in your words, how many 'bad drafts' can one have, but expecting a 'positive impact quickly' is an impossible
expectation beyond high in the first round.
Like I've said to other posters, it really really REALLY puts things in perspective if you go to
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/teams/dr00006664.html and look at teams that ARENT the Kings as well. Just about any other team--INCLUDING lottery teams, in many cases--has the same issues if not more.
Do we need more? Absolutely. Should we have high expecations? Certainly. But I think there's a distinct lack of perspective in general on this board on what comes out of the draft from team to team.
Edit: and hell, just using that 2013 draft--Kings had no first rounder, no third rounder. So to turn a 2nd, 2 4th, 2 5ths, 6, 7, into decent assets is alright in my book. Zykov was trade bait, but he's a likely NHLer (not necessarily high impact but still). Auger, probably not an NHLer but he was a size project pick. Fasching, I remember the worries around here when he was traded, looks like he'll be a good one. Bartosak was looking marvelous until he went stupid. Brodzinski is a great value 5th rounder. Leslie probably going nowhere, and Kubalik is whatever though he looks like he's developed a bit more back home. So granted many of those assets aren't with us anymore for a variety of reasons (including supplementing the current roster with Sekera, Mcnabb), but most of those look like at least decent picks where they're at, no? I guess to me it's less a 'drafting problem' and more an 'asset managment' problem.
