We don't talk about it much but that Pearson pick was genius in context.
Overager, close enough to ready to contribute in 2014, draft around him was meh.
Yup, never thought of it that way but it certainly was. The Kings drafted a guy in June 2012 and by the spring of 2014 he was a Top-6 forward
I will start off with the Schenn response. Who would you have picked instead. In hindsight it looks like they picked the best player so therefor a homerun pick as there was no one better to pick.
Last 6
22 - no pick
21 - Clarke - what is your problem w this pick, who would you have picked instead?
20 - Byfield.- the kid turned 20 a few days ago, broke an ankle, had Covid and got to the NHL during a playoff push, flanked by a guy who retired and another guy only the Hawks would touch. Maybe give him another year before writing him off.
19 - Turcotte - yes. Bitch about this pick all you want. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. No one knew he was going to get injured, sick and concussions like he did. He was rated a top 3 to 10 pick everywhere so he wasn’t a reach. The GM that did the best was Yzernam who took a massive reach and won with Seider. Not many projected this. So we will ignore the Kaliyev and Bjornfot pucks and say this draft sucked.
18 - Kupari - what is wrong with this pick? It’s the 20th over all, not a top 5, 10, or 15. Big, fast, winger that suffered a nasty knee injury and is just getting to the NHL level. Other then K’Andre Miller picked after him who else would you have wanted?
17 - Vilardi — I bet you pissed your pants in excitement like the rest of us when he fell to us. Yannetti can’t predict a massive back issue. That would be on the Medical staff. Even with Vilardi “stalled” there are 4 guys picked in the next 2 rounds after him that have established themselves in the NHL more then he has and that just happened last season.
So yes in the last 6 years we haven’t put a star in the NHL but looking at draft position, players picked after our picks and recency i. The last few picks haven’t really played we are looking okay. Unfortunately it’s way too early to debate the Clarke and Byfield picks.
Ok sorry. I am going to barrage you with a lot of questions.
Does the "it's not a bad pick because that is where they were ranked" thing apply to every first round pick in the history of the league?
Are you of the opinion that there is no such thing as a bad pick or a bust except in extreme cases where teams reach and the pick doesn't work out (Thomas Hickey for example)?
Does this apply to the the NHL only or to other sports too, like does Philadelphia get a pass for Jalen Raegor over Justin Jefferson because that is where he was projected to go by most services?
Does this go both ways and there is no such thing as a good pick either if the player taken was expected to go in that range?
Are Drew Doughty and AK not good picks because that is where they were supposed to go or were the highest ranked guy available?
Is a guy like Moritz Seider one of the only "good picks" in the NHL in recent memory?
If the rankings of outside services are very important in evaluating draft prospects and teams should heavily lean on them why employ and presumably spend millions of dollars each year on salary and travel expenses for the scouting staff to watch these players?
Would it make more financial sense to just have Blake take the highest ranked player on the board?
Aren't scouts expected to evaluate the players at 17 and translate to how they will look at their peak?
---------------------------------
Moving on
With 2017, I think it's a bit disingenuous to say over the first 2 rounds there were only 4 players picked who are worth a damn after, by saying 2 rounds that makes it seem like it was a large number of picks, it wasn't, it was literally the next 5 forwards taken after Gabe. That means every one of those guys should have been on the short-list of players that the Kings should have heavily scouted that year leading up to the draft. The Kings, if they were doing an adequate job (and all indications they are) of seeing these guys why didn't someone see the elite two-way game of Suzuki, the elite shot and finishing ability of Norris, the playmaking of Thomas?
There is also the thing about other teams passing, is it a fair assumption to say other teams saw a red-flag in GV (which obviously was skating)? And is it fair to ask why the Kings didn't?
Also, it was before last season where these guys emerged. Robert Thomas scored at a 50 point pace as a 19 year old in 2019. Suzuki was the 1C on a Stanley Cup finalist in 2021, Norris made the all-rookie team two years ago and scored at a 45 goal pace this season as a 22 year old. Many of these guys are highly paid key players on their NHL clubs both now and in the futute
2019 it's the same thing, is it to much to ask your scouts to find the right pick when not even 2-3 years later these guys were emerging as difference makers in the pros? When it comes to your pick and you are presented with Turcotte, Cozens, Boldy, Caufield and Zegras should the scouts be expected to find the right player? That is another tough pill to swallow, why didn't the Kings scouts see the off-the-charts skill of Zegras, or the world class shooting of Caufield or the size and skill combination of Boldy? Why is this a common problem in the 1st round of not being able to get these guys in the system?
Are you off the opinion that without injuries that both Kings players would be at the same level as their peers from the same draft?
I don't expect 100% hits, but there also has to be some accountability to why the Kings have so much trouble being able to add difference making young players to the organization.
