You can’t say Vilardi was a bad pick because no one could have expected what happened with his back. It definitely impacted the short window to improve his skating in any meaningful way. Given the issues it’s remarkable that he’s played at all, in some ways. But… even allowing for all of that they didn’t handle him as well as they should have. He needed more AHL time and should never have played 2C so early.
It was a great pick in context, the talent is top 10 pick level (higher if he had better skating)… but bad luck and a couple of debatable decisions. But again it’s easy with hindsight because his first 10 games got us all very excited.
Sure I can. We are entering Year 6 and on most lineup projections he is either a healthy scratch or on waivers. For a #11 pick in a black and white results oriented thing like a draft that is considered a failure, especially when you look at the players taken after him. If any one of those players listed (save Chytil) were given the opportunity Vilardi was given in 20-21 this organization is in a much better spot now and in the future. And trust me, I respect your opinion, I don't consider you a blind homer or anything but you are completely ignoring this part of it, that 5 of the next 6 forwards taken are anything from very good NHL'ers to star players. Gabriel Vilardi due to his skating was never going to be as good as any of those guys and that is where you completely lose me with calling it "a good pick", there were plenty of good pick centers available there and the Kings choose poorly, this is another example of why can we praise Kaliyev and Anderson and Spence but not be critical of other picks?
And you touched on two other points, one evaluation and one development that were mistakes.
The skating always sucked (and skating is never an easy fix). That is very likely the reason he fell significantly on draft day from where he was ranked. By then most NHL GM's realized the direction the game was going and drafted accordingly and the Kings didn't. I know people always get mad when it's brought up "what would other teams do" like it's ridiculous or unfair, but why can't we consider the decisions of other teams in regards to the same player? Is it fair to say that quite a few teams passed on GV for some reason? And if yes, why can't we ask why the Kings didn't see those same red flags that others did?
And the other is the development decision to try and force him into a center role when by 2020 the Kings should have seen how the league was and acted accordingly. Does it change a ton? Maybe, maybe not. I won't put it in the same category as the awful development decisions with Turcotte and QB, because it's not. But Vilardi never should have had that 2C role in 2020-2021 and should have been attempting to convert to wing in the minors, which would have been an easier task with a 21 year old player instead of a 22 year old one.
But what are we actually arguing here -- a few players drafted within last 5 years are busts OR the entire development system integrated by the Kings is f***ed? From what I can see, as of Oct last year, the Kings were ranked #8 overall for rosters built through the draft -- and they were #13 youngest team in the league.
So, which one is it?
I never said the whole development system is screwed Axl. You are building a straw man here, come on you are better than that. Why would I continually say in my opinion the Kings are the best in the league at drafting and developing outside of round 1 if I thought the whole system was screwed? I deal in results. And the results outside of round 1 are spectacular and inside of it are terrible. That doesn't mean the whole system is screwed it just means the Kings have a difficult time finding the best player available in Round 1 and the compound that with awful development decisions with those players.
And your age thing is a perfect example of that. Kaliyev, Spence, Anderson, Durzi (not drafted, but traded for and developed), Faber (flipped for a semi-star player). All outside of round 1. That is good, really good.
And I love how you say "a few players" like they are just random guys taken with less valuable picks. These were three very high picks, not guys taken late in the 1st or something.
A #11 pick where there were obviously plenty of high-end players available and the Kings made a poor evaluation vs what was available and then made a development error on top of it by not making the position switch earlier.
A #5 pick where the Kings again had high-end players on the board and made an evaluation error on ceiling and then compounded that by making one of the worst development decisions I've ever seen with a college player in my 22 years following it closely. One that I can guarantee most NHL teams would not have made.
A #2 pick. Now QB is a very talented hockey player a great skater with an all-star skill set. So in that regard he's not similar to the other two who had fatal flaws to returning a good ROI on their spot. QB has a chance to be great. But again, another unorthodox development decision that most NHL teams would not have made and well here we are entering year 3 with more questions than answers in what most would agree is a huge year for his long-term outlook. So why again if the Kings are doing things so much differently than other teams causing at best slower development and at worst damaging development permanently should that not be discussed or in your case outright ignored.
The expectation for 2-5-11 picks over a four year period should result in at least 1 star player, and if you are going to have a homerun rebuild probably two star players. Our last rebuild did that, Chicago's rebuild did that, Pittsburgh's rebuild did that, Tampa's rebuild did that, Colorado's rebuild did that. We enter years 6, 4 and 3 with nothing close to that and really only 1 of them still having even a chance for stardom but even that is not exactly trending right. That is bad, really bad.
And the other part of my post, which you didn't mention was the ridiculous ideas you have had in the past about the length of time it takes for players to start making at least an NHL impact. You are excusing the lack of anything by saying how young these players are, just completely ignoring the way the game is now which is younger and younger. It seems your mindset is 25 years behind in the dead puck era. If you are a first round pick and you aren't atleast a top 9 guy by the the end of your D+4 your chances of ever being a top 6 are extremely extremely small. Yet you are still calling 22-23 year old players "kids".
More evidence on that since you apparently think everything I say is made up or something.
Of the Top 50 scorers in the NHL last season (which should not be an outlandish goal for players taken 2-5-11). 45 of them were forwards.
Of those 45 forwards, 40 of them were NHL regulars during or before their age 21 season
33 of those 45 scored at a .5PPG or better before their 22nd birthday.
You probably think I am cherry picking the elite of elite players, right. Well, go take a look at the 1st lines, or even the 2nd lines of NHL teams and look at when guys debut. You are crazy if you think 18-22 year olds are not playing a big role in the modern NHL.
So yes, just torpedoing nonsense that you spew on this particular topic. I'm all for arguing factual comments with people like KP and RJ. But you are just posting completely false takes to excuse the failures of the Kings. You are doing the same thing you criticized Sol for in the other thread.
I think it's worth acknowledging at some point that Turcotte going to the AHL was a mutual decision, Herby.
Lumbergh,
I'm not arguing that it wasn't a mutual decision, just that one-side of the mutual didn't matter at all. The guy I was arguing with is somehow trying to say that the Kings didn't want to sign Turcotte but were somehow forced to because him and his agent wanted him to go pro. That is simply not the way it works, that is all I was pointing out. College players can tell NHL teams they want to leave, but the ball is 100% in the court of the teams when it comes to handing out contracts. Agents and players almost always want to leave asap, and it is up to the team to be the rational one and to trust proven and clearly defined ways to develop players like this. Take a look at the players who play 1 year and then the AHL vs. those who play 2 years of college, it's not even close which ones turn out better.
Both Wisconsin players (with the same agent) wanted to leave college after their freshman season, one team said yes, one team said no. It's pretty obvious which one made the right decision and which one made a poor one. And my educated guess is that the vast majority of NHL GM's would have told Turcotte and Brisson the same thing that the Habs told Caufield and Brisson. It shouldn't have been even under consideration with the type of freshman season he had, yet it happened, and it's been a huge obstacle to his development.
Trying to pass the blame on to players and agents for decisions made 100% by an NHL front office is a beyond massive reach some are making
And not directed at you, but others who have made the "He wanted to go pro" excuse to defend that signing. What were Turcotte's options if Blake said no? What realistically likely happens if Blake says no?
The answer to #1 is he could go back to college, go to Saginaw or go to Europe.
The answer to #2 is almost always, the player returns to college, with a very small number who truly hated school opting for the CHL route.
The player and his agent have 2-7 of clubs on a 10-J-Q-K-5 all red board. That is the way the system is set-up in the NHL, and its why inmates don't run the asylum like in some other leagues.
Trust me on this one, I know with 100% certainty of many players over the years who wanted to leave and were told they couldn't by their NHL teams and went back to school. And almost all of those guys ended up being not only more ready for pro hockey, but better long-term because of it.
We just don’t know that at all. Repeating this sort of stuff constantly (not just you) despite it being speculation at best, gets into peoples heads and creates a false narrative based on nothing but conjecture and opinion and the occasional “I know because I know”.
Given what he did here as a player (and I am talking generally here) I’m stunned how little respect he gets. That doesn’t mean people need to agree with him, I certainly don’t always, but he really gets shat upon. It surprises me.
Yes, it is speculation. But there is history behind it to with the Robitaille/Brisson/Pacioretty thing.
Just to clarify I am not saying this 100% was the reason or even the likely reason, I still think Blake's AHL obsession shows that he just wants everyone in Ontario as soon as humanly possible and Turcotte unfortunately fell victim to this. But the decision to pull a player of Turcotte's caliber from school after 1 year was just so unorthodox and so bizarre that it is natural to look at possible reasons why it happened, and well there is one that is a possibility with the agent (err "family advisor" sorry NCAA) having such a strong connection to the team president.
As far as the last part, we all loved Luc as a player, I have a jersey of his in my closet and a signed one on the wall of my sports room. He was my first favorite player. But what Luc did as a player should have no bearing on how he is evaluated as an executive of the team. They are two completely different jobs. Same thing with Blake, I despised him as a player for the ridiculous stunt with the C, but that has no bearing on how he is viewed as an executive.
Getting truthful information from the Kings is about as difficult as getting it from the North Korean Govt, so we really don't know how much of a role in player personnel that Robitaille plays. Some say he is just a business side guy trying to squeeze as much money out of customers as he can, while others swear he has his hands in every personnel move.
