I mean sometimes these are valid responses though when people throw out certain ideas lol. Take the Wallstedt thing for example...
Obviously now we know Wallstedt went at 20th overall and is looking pretty damn good so it's super easy to say 'oh man they should've picked him at #8 or traded down to the 10-20 range and picked him!!' but was trading down actually a legitimate option?? Would selecting him at 8th overall been better than taking Clarke?? We have no idea. And moreso, when you're actually at the draft table, you have no idea what players other teams are eyeing with their picks. It would've been SUPER risky to pass on a player like Clarke to try to move back in the draft and hope Wallstedt was still available.
If the claim is that they should've traded down to pick Wallstedt, you're assuming A) Other teams wanted to trade up to 8th overall and were willing to offer a legitimately reasonable trade package and B) Wallstedt would've still been available at whatever position the Kings had traded down to. Both of those are wildcards. You also run the risk of missing out on BOTH players entirely with that approach.
And if the claim is that they should've taken him at 8, that then creates a new problem as the Kings would lack a blue chip blueliner who has the potential to take over for an aging Doughty.
I'm down to talk about these things. And I'm down to play the would've/should've/could've armchair GM game - But certainly hindsight and not lack of risk / accountability is a luxury we have in these discussions.
Re: taking Wallstedt at 8; I wouldn't have advocated they take Wallstedt at 8. I was saying before the draft that I thought Clarke could contend for first overall and was over the moon when he was available and the Kings drafted him.
The Kings did try to trade up. That's been reported. Heck, the Wallstedt pick was actually from Edmonton trading out. Is there a world where the Kings could have convinced Edmonton to trade down from the 40s? Maybe not. But he's not the only goalie. And the concerns about goaltending have been things we've called for.
It's not a "see, I told you the Kings should have drafted Wallstedt," though people were calling for Wallstedt before the draft for that reason. It's more like "the goaltending pipeline is barren and they need to address the issue ASAP." Up until this offseason, they had:
David Hrenak - who has since gone back overseas after a decent but not dominant senior year in college
Lukas Parik - who the Kings have since distanced themselves from and let him walk away due to philosophical differences
Juho Markkanen - he's been a backup in Germany and now Finland, but never been a starting role
Jacob Ingham - He's had 6 AHL games up until this season and missed all of last season due to injury. His professional career has predominantly been in the ECHL.
Matt Villalta - He's been a perennial AHL starter, but has been questionable and inconsistent, not getting a single game of NHL experience.
Not having a single goalie at least giving confidence of playing in the NHL as a backup, while Petersen was already in his late 20s (while already struggling) was predictable for anyone paying attention. And with Portillo getting backup duty in the AHL, he's probably at least a few seasons from being an NHL starter. Hampton Slukynsky, who they just drafted this year, is playing in the USHL before he even starts his NCAA career - that means, being generous, he's at least 4 years away from being an AHL player.
So, this means the Kings either need to make another trade for a bluechip goaltending prospect, or they keep leaning on bandaids like Copley, Rittich, and Talbot until someone else emerges.
And the thing is, with us bringing these issues up, we've been told "just shut up and enjoy Kings hockey" "you complain too much" and "you don't know what we're talking about." Even after this all gets carefully outlined.
So, if you want to dispute whether or not Wallstedt is the answer, I won't disagree. But there have been many times some people have accused others of "using hindsight" for bringing up outcomes we said that were serious issues.
See but this is where hindsight (or just knowing what we know now) becomes a factor.
Faber looked good at the time we traded him and was seen as a guy who could be a solid top 4 D in a few years but it wasn't really expected that he'd be THIS good THIS soon. The guy is so sick and basically a top pair D right now. Maybe the Kings would still do the trade knowing what we know now but it's tough to say.
But some of us did. We brought up he played on the Olympic team as a 19 year-old. Some of us criticized the Fiala trade because of what we traded away.
This is why saying "we have the benefit of hindsight" is extremely patronizing, because some of us saw value in what the Kings have.
