Blake Extended for 3 Years

  • 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
Can you give me one example of an NHL team that put primary focus on development rather than winning during a playoff run?

The org iced what they thought was the best team they had access to. The end.
Can you give an example of an NHL team that made a serious playoff run with an aging, injured core and several high draft picks playing no meaningful minutes in either the nHL or AHL, with zero players in the top 50 scorers?

This year’s team was basically a living embodiment of the sunken costs fallacy. I don’t blame them for trying, but things need to change going forward.
 
You are preaching to a group that suffers from severe delusions.

For example, we could have a PP starring Kucherov, Stamkos, Hedman and they’d still be convinced it would suck due to the coaching.

If the delusion is I want my best offensive prospects playing big minutes in the NHL OR AHL--rather than neither in both--then I'm delusional as f*** and proud of it.

The Kings have made forty draft picks since 2015, and Our NHL team AND AHL team BOTH went down swinging with every single first rounder and several more (Spence, Bjornfot, Moverare, etc) on the bench and only two picks--Kaliyev and Anderson--on the NHL ice. A few more were getting nominal minutes in the AHL.
 
Kopitar is still light years ahead of Byfield. He didn't even come close to 25 minutes a game(20:46). He was a minus 6 while playing the Mcdavids and MacKinnons, Byfield was minus 7 playing against 3rd and 4th liners. Kopitar won 57% of his faceoffs Byfield won 45% of his. Who would you rather take the important faceoffs? Kopitar is getting old and should give back some minutes but not to Byfield at this time. Byfield should have been getting 15+ minutes a game at Ontario when it became obvious that he is not yet ready for the NHL.

Nowhere did I or anyone else say 'play him over Kopitar.'

Only that if you have him in the NHL, spare him some minutes, since Kopitar was clearly running on fumes for LOTS of the season.

Otherwise, when you get to the playoffs and you're scared to play anyone under 25, you can look squarely at the idiotic fact/self-fulfilling prophecy that you were scared to give those guys responsibility and minutes when the games were far less meaningful.

1653360563090.png
 
If the delusion is I want my best offensive prospects playing big minutes in the NHL OR AHL--rather than neither in both--then I'm delusional as f*** and proud of it.

The Kings have made forty draft picks since 2015, and Our NHL team AND AHL team BOTH went down swinging with every single first rounder and several more (Spence, Bjornfot, Moverare, etc) on the bench and only two picks--Kaliyev and Anderson--on the NHL ice. A few more were getting nominal minutes in the AHL.
The companion piece to this is that the core, whose reputations are basically dictating the deferred development of a lot of those high end prospects, now consists of a still great d-man out for the season, a former captain and bruising straight line forward literally on his way out of the league because he can't keep up, and a former elite C and elite G gutting it out gamely enough (especially Quick) but in no way resembling the players they were a decade ago.
 
Nowhere did I or anyone else say 'play him over Kopitar.'

Only that if you have him in the NHL, spare him some minutes, since Kopitar was clearly running on fumes for LOTS of the season.

Otherwise, when you get to the playoffs and you're scared to play anyone under 25, you can look squarely at the idiotic fact/self-fulfilling prophecy that you were scared to give those guys responsibility and minutes when the games were far less meaningful.

View attachment 551071
If you want to take minutes from Kopitar and give them to Byfield isn't that in away playing Byfield over Kopitar? I know you want Byfield on the PP so who would you take off the PP?
 
If you want to take minutes from Kopitar and give them to Byfield isn't that in away playing Byfield over Kopitar? I know you want Byfield on the PP so who would you take off the PP?
I have no problem giving Byfield Kopitar's minutes on the power play for extended periods of time during the regular season. Kopitar is not the future.
 
If you want to take minutes from Kopitar and give them to Byfield isn't that in away playing Byfield over Kopitar? I know you want Byfield on the PP so who would you take off the PP?

I would have much preferred to see--particularly earlier in the season---more games with Kopitar at 18-19 minutes and Byfield at 16-17 and far fewer with Kopitar at 22-24 and Byfield at 8-10.

And re: the PP could have placed Byfield anywhere on PP1, he's versatile like that and absolutely deadly in front of the net, if you don't want to make PP2 'his' in the same way PP1 is Kopitar's.

What we've been asking for all year isn't that profound; it gets misrepresented as "dump all the vets and play all the kids as the top 6" but it's really just asking for progressively more responsibility and minutes for the kids and/or pairing them with vets instead of quarantining them all together in the bottom six in limited roles then acting shocked when they aren't ready for the big time.
 
I have no problem giving Byfield Kopitar's minutes on the power play for extended periods of time during the regular season. Kopitar is not the future.

The issue there is that neither are Danault/Arrvidson/Iafallo. All of those forwards will be 30 next year and take up 15 million in cap space, by signing/acquiring them Blake committed to the now instead of the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KINGS17
The issue there is that neither are Danault/Arrvidson/Iafallo. All of those forwards will be 30 next year and take up 15 million in cap space, by signing/acquiring them Blake committed to the now instead of the future.
I think the problem is Blake is trying to do a little of both. Win now with vets and at the same time work in the youth. We will know Blake has committed to now when he trades a prospect for a vet. Danault and Arrvidson were good moves. Can he do it again this year acquire help without
giving anything up?
 
I think the problem is Blake is trying to do a little of both. Win now with vets and at the same time work in the youth. We will know Blake has committed to now when he trades a prospect for a vet. Danault and Arrvidson were good moves. Can he do it again this year acquire help without
giving anything up?

I somewhat believe that Blake bought into the media hyping the Kings prospect pool. I think he assumed that his vaunted prospects would naturally rise to the occasion and if he found veteran pieces to supplement their rise it would all work out. The problem is that most of our prospects have not shown the expected growth, so he is in a weird position. I also think that AEG is expecting returns on the move of firing the GM/Coach who brought them two cups, so there may be a bit of pressure on both Blake and Luc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kenito7
He mostly certainly was good enough to eat into their minutes--not necessarily as a 1C or 2C but Kopitar didn't need 25 minutes a game, especially when he was getting caved in nightly. It would have been easy to give Byfield 3-5 more minutes a game, particularly with PP time--and no one can pretend he wasn't good enough to get some exposure to a historically bad PP.

Maybe he would have put it together a bit more by the end of the season, maybe he wouldn't have--but you're not going to find out by giving him barely time to get by. In a world where Raymond got nearly 1500 minutes, Mercer nearly 1400, Caufield nearly 1200, Lundell over 1000, Newhook 960, Ryan freakin McLeod over 900...the Kings couldn't even find Byfield 500. You're not going to learn much about a supposedly high-end player that way.

For f*** sake, they also played an entire f***ing season.....not 30 games....or whatever Byfield was at.
 
Kopitar wasnt good gimme a break. He played nearly 25 minutes a night. Lost matchups and was a minus player. He was 140th in goals its not like he was lighting it up and no one could touch him.

20:46 is nearly 25 minutes a night? f*** I thought I was good at hyperbole
 
He mostly certainly was good enough to eat into their minutes--not necessarily as a 1C or 2C but Kopitar didn't need 25 minutes a game, especially when he was getting caved in nightly. It would have been easy to give Byfield 3-5 more minutes a game, particularly with PP time--and no one can pretend he wasn't good enough to get some exposure to a historically bad PP.

Maybe he would have put it together a bit more by the end of the season, maybe he wouldn't have--but you're not going to find out by giving him barely time to get by. In a world where Raymond got nearly 1500 minutes, Mercer nearly 1400, Caufield nearly 1200, Lundell over 1000, Newhook 960, Ryan freakin McLeod over 900...the Kings couldn't even find Byfield 500. You're not going to learn much about a supposedly high-end player that way.

Newhook 71 games, 960
Byfield 40 games, 486
Lundell 65 games, 1022
Caufield 67 games, 1117

One of these things is not like the other.....but f*** it, lets see if he had played the same # of games 804 minutes over 67 games, still not as high as the others, I will 100% give you that.....but no where NEAR the BS you are trying to make it out to be
 
Newhook 71 games, 960
Byfield 40 games, 486
Lundell 65 games, 1022
Caufield 67 games, 1117

One of these things is not like the other.....but f*** it, lets see if he had played the same # of games 804 minutes over 67 games, still not as high as the others, I will 100% give you that.....but no where NEAR the BS you are trying to make it out to be
Wait, are you implying the Kings are NOT trying to sabotage the development of our top prospects? That’s absurd.
 
Can you give me one example of an NHL team that put primary focus on development rather than winning during a playoff run?

The org iced what they thought was the best team they had access to. The end.
What's the point in drawing you a map if you insist on holding it upside down?

They CHOSE not to deal any of the kids to improve this teams chances, which shows their intent of developing from within. Then they CHOSE not to play them in favor of rent-a-vets who were not good enough to help them win anything - and they should have known that.

They had two simultaneous squads in the playoffs yet the players who needed the experience most, as well as a confidence boost, lost time to journeymen Athanasiou, Stetcher, Frk and Tynan. AND both squads lost early in the run.

They didn't make an effort to win, you are dead wrong about that. They tried to play it right down the middle, keep the kids up but not play them so they can watch the moldy oldies lose. Less experience gained than they should have received, no success for the team, self limited progress.

Why? That is the question worth asking because these playoffs were a perfect two week long microcosm of the whole year. Less growth than possible, less success than possible. Two ends half assed against each other.

The skill players are having trouble executing simple plays. There is no confidence in a young group that should be rearing to go with youthful enthusiasm, but instead looks nervous at almost all times. They aren't making proactive mistakes of trying too hard, they are making reactive mistakes out of fear.

That isn't poor drafting, its piss poor management who does not deserve the benefit of any doubt because there is a laundry list of poor decisions since they took over.
 
What's the point in drawing you a map if you insist on holding it upside down?

They CHOSE not to deal any of the kids to improve this teams chances, which shows their intent of developing from within. Then they CHOSE not to play them in favor of rent-a-vets who were not good enough to help them win anything - and they should have known that.

They had two simultaneous squads in the playoffs yet the players who needed the experience most, as well as a confidence boost, lost time to journeymen Athanasiou, Stetcher, Frk and Tynan. AND both squads lost early in the run.

They didn't make an effort to win, you are dead wrong about that. They tried to play it right down the middle, keep the kids up but not play them so they can watch the moldy oldies lose. Less experience gained than they should have received, no success for the team, self limited progress.

Why? That is the question worth asking because these playoffs were a perfect two week long microcosm of the whole year. Less growth than possible, less success than possible. Two ends half assed against each other.

The skill players are having trouble executing simple plays. There is no confidence in a young group that should be rearing to go with youthful enthusiasm, but instead looks nervous at almost all times. They aren't making proactive mistakes of trying too hard, they are making reactive mistakes out of fear.

That isn't poor drafting, its piss poor management who does not deserve the benefit of any doubt because there is a laundry list of poor decisions since they took over.

So.....you can't.....that's the entire gist of the self imposed flagellation of a post...

You say they CHOSE not to deal the kids, are you guessing, or do you know for a fact they turned down NYIs offer of Cal Clutterbuck for Byfield, and Clarke?
 
I'm in the middle on this argument. I do think the org could have given more TOI to youngsters, but I think people are exaggerating the lack of development time. I don't the the pace the Kings are bringing the prospects along is completely unreasonable.

I'm also in the middle on Todd. I'm critical of some of his decisions, but I don't think he's a terrible coach (or a good coach), he's just average.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Axl Rhoadz
Newhook 71 games, 960
Byfield 40 games, 486
Lundell 65 games, 1022
Caufield 67 games, 1117

One of these things is not like the other.....but f*** it, lets see if he had played the same # of games 804 minutes over 67 games, still not as high as the others, I will 100% give you that.....but no where NEAR the BS you are trying to make it out to be

"I ran the numbers, and....you're right BUT STILL" is lol.
 
"I ran the numbers, and....you're right BUT STILL" is lol.

Horseshit and you know it.....OMG Byfield didn't even get 500 minutes....see...shit development, how can he produce if he's not getting played......see....look at all these other young players getting all these minutes.....

Points out that they all played 20-25 more games if not more.....hence why the 500 minutes remark is such a horseshit excuse for an argument....and....well your still right...is LOL ?

Naw bud, it's a bullshit argument, it's always been a bullshit argument and it continues to be a bullshit argument.

If you want to complain about average TOI, then go right ahead, and least THAT argument has ONE leg to stand on......but when you do that, the grievance as egregious is it?

Byfield AVG TOI - 12:09
Newhook AVG TOI - 13:34
Mcleod AVG TOI - 12:46

Doesn't look NEARLY as impressive as OMG Byfield didn't even get 500 minutes.....
 
Arthur Kaliyev....1,011 minutes.....
Durzi 1,254 minutes
Bjornfoot 1,137 minutes

Kinda blows that asinine theory out of the water

You're digging a hole even deeper.

Kaliyev is the prize winning horse of that Kings rookie forward group and he narrowly played more than McLeod and far less than the other rookie forwards despite playing nearly all 82 games. Hilarious, thanks for doing that for me.

The point is, that you're unwillingly illustrating, is that no matter how you slice it--total TOI, TOI/GP x amount of actual games, lines and linemates, whatever else you can come up with....Kings kid forwards got FAR LESS development minutes and far fewer situations and games than other comparable rookie forwards around the league.
 
You're digging a hole even deeper.

Kaliyev is the prize winning horse of that Kings rookie forward group and he narrowly played more than McLeod and far less than the other rookie forwards despite playing nearly all 82 games. Hilarious, thanks for doing that for me.

The point is, that you're unwillingly illustrating, is that no matter how you slice it--total TOI, TOI/GP x amount of actual games, lines and linemates, whatever else you can come up with....Kings kid forwards got FAR LESS development minutes and far fewer situations and games than other comparable rookie forwards around the league.

Far less? Ok...so FLA use of Lundell and his 1,022 minutes....was what...much better than Kaliyev and his 1,011?

Point is you made an idiotic argument about total minutes, when total minutes means absolute f***all, it's like asking how much a house cost in the 1930's to determine if you should buy a house now in 2022, doesn't make any f***ing sense does it?

Kaliyev played more than Lundell, more than Newhook more than McLeod, more than Jarvis, more than Boldy, and he played less than Raymond, Caufield, Zegras, etc...

So right in the middle of the pack....and yet your idiotic argument wants people to think LA is the worst team in the league at development......because of.....total f***ing minutes.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad