You are making the same judgements that GBH is. Nobody is saying that the Kings moved everybody quickly through without AHL time, that is not the point of dispute. The facts are that when the Kings had players good enough to play on the NHL roster, they put them there, which is not the case with this team under Rob Blake, in fact it's not even close, and this with a Kings team that has been anywhere from garbage to middling in every season Blake has been GM, which wasn't the case with the previous teams. If a player was good enough for the NHL roster they made the team, whether they were a teenager or not, whether they had "paid their dues" and "learned the system" or not. There was no "Only the McDavid's of the world make the league without AHL time" which is now the belief of the organization. A couple of years ago GBH claimed that the Kings didn't use their AHL affiliate more than other teams for 1/2 round picks, so I went through and just researched it, and guess what the numbers showed? GBH then tilted to his usual predictable, "There are plenty of ways to develop prospects" (as he defends a management team that only develops prospects one way). Of course never acknowledging that he was wrong or apologizing for saying I was making things up.
Nobody is saying every prospect should play in the NHL without AHL time, just that AHL usage should not be a requirement for every high end prospect that a team drafts and develops. It doesn't happen that way around the league, and the rest of the league has done a better job developing youth than Rob Blake has done in LA.
Do you think the Kings under DL put Clarke and Byfield in the AHL? I don't, I think they do what other teams have consistently done with similar players. Byfield would have been in the league at 18 and Clarke either makes the team at 19, or at the very least is an NHL'er at 20, no way on Earth does he spend a full season in the minors, these are examples of why it's dishonest to say the teams developed similarly. Could you imagine a Clifford, Moller, Simmonds or Johnson happening with the Kings now? Come on.
As RJ said, do you think it's normal for 1/2 round picks to reach waiver age without either being moved or integrated into the lineup? How often did that happen under "slow-cook" Lombardi. Thomas Hickey? How often has it happened under Blake? How can you possibly sit here and say it's comparable. Bjornfot lost to waivers, JAD lost to waivers. Kaiyev, Thomas, Turcotte all without defined roles up against waivers after D+5 or D+6. These are 1/2 round picks, including a Top 5 pick that have been slowcooked so long the smoker ran out of wood. This is not a normal way to develop youth, it isn't in the 2020's and it wasn't in the 2000's and 2010's.
Part of the reason why the Kings stopped putting players into the NHL so quickly was because they just stopped drafting good players, and yes also because they became contenders. But even as a contender, Tyler Toffoli (2nd round pick) was in the lineup for the Kings in the 2013 playoffs in his age 20 season when the Kings had the 2nd best team in the NHL, that is more than can be said for Brandt Clarke who despite being a Top 10 pick and playing at a much higher level in the AHL was not in the lineup for the a middling cannon fodder Kings playoff team. You think if others were in charge in this organization that Clarke would have been handled the same?
Just out of curiosity, in your opinion how many of the players who played 0 AHL games under DL would have also played 0 AHL games under Blake? Sure, if you want to debate Doughty and Kopitar sure, but really think Rob Blake, Nelson Emerson and Surf Nutz would have been ok with Simmonds, Johnson, Moller, Schenn in the NHL at 19 or 20? Come on, and that point alone is why his comments are dishonest.
