Speculation: LA Kings News, Rumors, Roster Thread part VII

[redcard]

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


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.

You know, to most of your questions I'd actually lean "yes." I think there's a pretty good argument to be made that draft success/failure in the first round is fairly indistinguishable from luck and by taking the consensus next ranked player you have as likely a chance or better to get a quality player than if you do if you try to outsmart everyone else. These kids are all so young, so close in talent, and so far from their potential that outside of a few really special kids there's just nothing there that says 3, 5, 7 years from now this kid is clearly going to be better than that one. There's skill guys that have failed, there's shooters that have failed, there's size guys that have failed, there's well rounded guys that have failed. You can look at any draft and redraft the first round and 25+ teams took the wrong player. Doesn't mean they all got a bad one, but their scouts who thought they were picking the best guy available....weren't. Then there's the whole development discussion, what you do with the kid and the decisions you make once he's in your system, opportunities for success etc.

So yes, I think Hickey and Seider are rare examples of bad and good picks, and that most first round picks are just......picks. If you have the 15th pick and you draft the guy ranked ~15th by most scouting services, and most teams have him ranked somewhere around 15th but he ends up being the 3rd best player in the draft I don't think it means you have great scouting. Conversely, if you have the 14th pick and you draft the guy ranked ~14th by most scouting services, and most teams have him ranked somewhere around 14th but he ends up with less than a season of NHL games in his career I don't think it means you have bad scouting.

Outside the first round....completely different story. There's 192 guys getting drafted that aren't interviewed by every team, aren't on everyone's radar, and have far less information available to every team. That's where your scouting is going to set you apart. As for other leagues, aren't NFL and NBA players more NFL/NBA ready once they're drafted? I'd argue that should make it at least marginally easier to project, but then again you still have to develop the player, you still have to put them in a position to succeed.

 

[Peter James Bond II]

Hey guys, ducks fan. Wanted to ask Kings fans here how Byfield is doing and his development. I know there are select few on these boards who think he is a bust (I don't think so)



Yeah, I truthfully wasn't a fan of Terry. Always thought he was a big project that wasn't worth investing in (even though he had WC hype). There is one particular poster on HFDucks who has an orgasm over him every single time he does something.

I wonder if he will regress or not.

You're going to hear dozens of answers, with great variance.
The player he is, will be nothing like the player he will be in 3 years.
There are several reasons for this. He's not a 'project', but he's had some
setbacks with the ankle injury and short covid season (not exclusive to him but didnt help)
and he looks 6'5" 200 and not strong. He may well be 215-220, but he looks frail at times and
has little power. I've seen photos of the recent beach volleyball time at camp...he's filling out
and has some muscle. The day he was drafted, Yannetti said he was physically immature and
not wanting to look that up or put words in his mouth, but he was emphatic about that. He was'
saying he was not strong.

He can sure skate and has shown good overall skills and vision. The short stick is not a good thing
and hoping he can change that...he's also said he likes being lean and quick...but he's going to soon
realize, that he needs to be 225-230 and add some power and lose 3-5% of that quickness.
The quickness element is not going to dominate anyone...of course, it's a great element, but having
man strength and some power will take his game higher.

I then will add something most may not. His icetime is terrible and he's played mostly with
Athanisiou and Brown last year. AA was mostly 1 dimensional and not even great at that...just
had some moments. He added nothing to QB's game and Brown was about 55% of the player
he was 3-4 years ago. He was unable to make plays, struggled often and was unable to add anything to
QB's line...If you put McDavid with those 2 (and ZERO PP time), 12 minutes of ice, he would be fighting to reach 40 points, seriously.

QB only got a few shifts on the PP and he looked great, the last few times he was on it,
A few times, he skated around the entire ozone, in complete control and had options.
He turned 20 a few days ago.

QB has to step up and I believe he will....last camp, he looked great and was earning a spot,
at age 19 and 1 month! And then the ankle break. I full well expect him to be 10 lbs heavier,
have higher confidence and drive to be that much better at camp, than last year.

I'll end with something team MVP Philip Danault said this past March. (I may butcher it a little)
"Quinton's going to be an important part of this team and soon" I know that's a little off....but
my point is, the players were seeing it, day in, day out, of what he was capable of in practice...
and then gametime,. he gets 11 TOI and with AA and Brown. It's going to happen.
And it begins THIS SEASON. He will automatically have better linemates...and I HOPE HOPE HOPE
Hiller sees his value to be on PP1. PP2 will do, if he actually gets time.

 

[KINGS17]

I strenuously object.

Oh, so that's how it works.

ATKM: "I object!"

Judge: "Overruled."

ATKM: "No, I strenuously object!!"

 

[Axl Rhoadz]

You know, to most of your questions I'd actually lean "yes." I think there's a pretty good argument to be made that draft success/failure in the first round is fairly indistinguishable from luck and by taking the consensus next ranked player you have as likely a chance or better to get a quality player than if you do if you try to outsmart everyone else. These kids are all so young, so close in talent, and so far from their potential that outside of a few really special kids there's just nothing there that says 3, 5, 7 years from now this kid is clearly going to be better than that one. There's skill guys that have failed, there's shooters that have failed, there's size guys that have failed, there's well rounded guys that have failed. You can look at any draft and redraft the first round and 25+ teams took the wrong player. Doesn't mean they all got a bad one, but their scouts who thought they were picking the best guy available....weren't. Then there's the whole development discussion, what you do with the kid and the decisions you make once he's in your system, opportunities for success etc.

So yes, I think Hickey and Seider are rare examples of bad and good picks, and that most first round picks are just......picks. If you have the 15th pick and you draft the guy ranked ~15th by most scouting services, and most teams have him ranked somewhere around 15th but he ends up being the 3rd best player in the draft I don't think it means you have great scouting. Conversely, if you have the 14th pick and you draft the guy ranked ~14th by most scouting services, and most teams have him ranked somewhere around 14th but he ends up with less than a season of NHL games in his career I don't think it means you have bad scouting.

Outside the first round....completely different story. There's 192 guys getting drafted that aren't interviewed by every team, aren't on everyone's radar, and have far less information available to every team. That's where your scouting is going to set you apart. As for other leagues, aren't NFL and NBA players more NFL/NBA ready once they're drafted? I'd argue that should make it at least marginally easier to project, but then again you still have to develop the player, you still have to put them in a position to succeed.

Great post.

 

[All The Kings Men]

Oh, so that's how it works.

ATKM: "I object!"

Judge: "Overruled."

ATKM: "No, I strenuously object!!"

well... i do

 

[Statto]

You know, to most of your questions I'd actually lean "yes." I think there's a pretty good argument to be made that draft success/failure in the first round is fairly indistinguishable from luck and by taking the consensus next ranked player you have as likely a chance or better to get a quality player than if you do if you try to outsmart everyone else. These kids are all so young, so close in talent, and so far from their potential that outside of a few really special kids there's just nothing there that says 3, 5, 7 years from now this kid is clearly going to be better than that one. There's skill guys that have failed, there's shooters that have failed, there's size guys that have failed, there's well rounded guys that have failed. You can look at any draft and redraft the first round and 25+ teams took the wrong player. Doesn't mean they all got a bad one, but their scouts who thought they were picking the best guy available....weren't. Then there's the whole development discussion, what you do with the kid and the decisions you make once he's in your system, opportunities for success etc.

So yes, I think Hickey and Seider are rare examples of bad and good picks, and that most first round picks are just......picks. If you have the 15th pick and you draft the guy ranked ~15th by most scouting services, and most teams have him ranked somewhere around 15th but he ends up being the 3rd best player in the draft I don't think it means you have great scouting. Conversely, if you have the 14th pick and you draft the guy ranked ~14th by most scouting services, and most teams have him ranked somewhere around 14th but he ends up with less than a season of NHL games in his career I don't think it means you have bad scouting.

Outside the first round....completely different story. There's 192 guys getting drafted that aren't interviewed by every team, aren't on everyone's radar, and have far less information available to every team. That's where your scouting is going to set you apart. As for other leagues, aren't NFL and NBA players more NFL/NBA ready once they're drafted? I'd argue that should make it at least marginally easier to project, but then again you still have to develop the player, you still have to put them in a position to succeed.

I think you pretty much nailed it. Depending on the year I think it starts to be good choices from maybe #20 onwards as that’s where consensus starts to head off in different directions. You’re also more likely to see someone slated to go on the 2nd round get picked or someone in those spots drop into the 2nd. However I certainly think that it’s only a good/bad pick if you go outside of the consensus tier of player when making the selection. Hickey and Teubert were bad picks although Hickey at #15 would’ve been an acceptable choice. Not taking 1st rounders in subsequent trade offers still astounds me more than the pick itself.

 

[Lt Dan]

I strenuously object.

LOL it's Jesse Cochran

 

[Nasti]

Oh, so that's how it works.

ATKM: "I object!"

Judge: "Overruled."

ATKM: "No, I strenuously object!!"

Judge: “Oh, you strenuously object. Well maybe I should take some time to reconsider.”

 

[KingsFan7824]

well... i do

Ok, but you only do that once.

 

[DoktorJeep]

LOL it's Jesse Cochran

If the glove fits, then you must convict.

 

[kingsfan28]

It always makes me die when the Ducks seem to draft all these good players in the first round and the kings keep sucking. Zegras and now McTavish. It’s hard not to get jealous about their future

If you go back pre-2019, there's not a lot there. Richie, Theodore , Rickel, Lindholm. No real stand out star and most, if not all have been traded.

While Zegras can score and can make dynamic plays, he's not very good at anything else. Their future number 1 center was a -21 , 39 pct FOW and can't backcheck at all. I think it was Moore or Kempe who blew right by him and scored last year. He just coasted and had a great view of the goal. Zegras then just skate back to the bench, dragging his stick on the ice like a pouty child who knew he got burned. I guess when you can make plays, these thing are overlooked. McTavish was the 3rd pick in the draft, and is expected to be good. Zegras was the BPA when the Ducks drafted him. Pretty easy pick. Just keep this in mind, the ducks at one time had the deepest defensive pool in the league, and only Fowler and one other came out of the pack . Justin Schultz ring a bell?

 

[kingsfan28]

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.

It was Lumbus choice I believe not to used the 2012 pick traded in the Jeff Carter deal. They opted to use it in the 2013 draft and took superstar Marko Dano.

 

[Sol]

If you go back pre-2019, there's not a lot there. Richie, Theodore , Rickel, Lindholm. No real stand out star and most, if not all have been traded.

While Zegras can score and can make dynamic plays, he's not very good at anything else. Their future number 1 center was a -21 , 39 pct FOW and can't backcheck at all. I think it was Moore or Kempe who blew right by him and scored last year. He just coasted and had a great view of the goal. Zegras then just skate back to the bench, dragging his stick on the ice like a pouty child who knew he got burned. I guess when you can make plays, these thing are overlooked. McTavish was the 3rd pick in the draft, and is expected to be good. Zegras was the BPA when the Ducks drafted him. Pretty easy pick. Just keep this in mind, the ducks at one time had the deepest defensive pool in the league, and only Fowler and one other came out of the pack . Justin Schultz ring a bell?

2019.. kings have been rebuilding for how long ? Just not a fair comparison. Zegras has more
Talent in his pinky than any of our prospects combined. I’d rather structure a talented player rather than have a structured untalented player.

 

[kingsfan28]

Was probably referring to their projections prior to the draft -- there wasn't a list out there that didn't have Turcotte in top 5. Hell, you could make a case now that Zegras should have went #1, yet 8 other teams passed on him.

Exactly. Prior to the draft they were close, along with Cozan. As you pointed out most had Turcotte at 5, and there with a few going as high as 3. Today, you can easily go back and look at the draft differently. You could do that with any draft. Hell, Hughes my go 2nd or 3rd with Sieder and Zegras drafted above him knowing what we know now.

 

[kingsfan28]

2019.. kings have been rebuilding for how long ? Just not a fair comparison. Zegras has more
Talent in his pinky than any of our prospects combined. I’d rather structure a talented player rather than have a structured untalented player.

I was replying to the blanket statement that Ducks always nail their 1st round pick, using the "zegras" draft to point out before him, there wan't much there. As for us, our rebuild started in and around 2017/2018. That work for you?

 

[Sol]

I was replying to the blanket statement that Ducks always nail their 1st round pick, using the "zegras" draft to point out before him, there wan't much there. As for us, our rebuild started in and around 2017/2018. That work for you?

No it doesn’t work for me since they have some impressive first round players while ours have been duds so far

 

[Axl Rhoadz]

No it doesn’t work for me since they have some impressive first round players while ours have been duds so far

Are these the same ‘duds’ that you think should be playing on the top two lines every night?

 

[King'sPawn]

Maybe it's just me, but I love Yannetti. His passion when he talks hockey and prospects is clearly there. He has deep foundational knowledge and he shares what he can when called on it. And he has clearly shown the capability of drafting quality NHL players during his tenure here.

I love his takes, even if I don't agree with everything he says.

 

[Sol]

He’s good outside the first round. That’s a big problem. Unless Blakey Blake and UnLucky Luc are the ones who are bombing the first round picks.

I’d fire spaghetti and development if I could. Drafting outside of the first round well only means nothing if you can’t land the top end players with high picks. Bombing harder than Hiroshima

 

[Lt Dan]

He’s good outside the first round. That’s a big problem. Unless Blakey Blake and UnLucky Luc are the ones who are bombing the first round picks.

I’d fire spaghetti and development if I could. Drafting outside of the first round well only means nothing if you can’t land the top end players with high picks. Bombing harder than Hiroshima

We should trade all of our first rounders for second rounders and pudding cups

 

[Sol]

We should trade all of our first rounders for second rounders and pudding cups

That would actually Be a great idea

 

[BigKing]

I was replying to the blanket statement that Ducks always nail their 1st round pick, using the "zegras" draft to point out before him, there wan't much there. As for us, our rebuild started in and around 2017/2018. That work for you?

The rebuild started the day Muzzin was traded, so put the rebuild start date as January 2019. You don't add a $6MM winger in free agency when you plan on being a bottom-feeder for a few seasons.

As for Anaheim, they have done well with their 1st round picks. You toss out Lindholm, Rakell and Theodore like they are trash picks. Rakell was 30OA and Theodore was 26OA. Little bit of a lull from 2014 up until Zegras in the 1st round but they didn't always have a 1st rounder and Ritchie at 10OA is the highest "miss". They are looking pretty good on their 2019 - '21 first picks: hitting big three years in a row is pretty important to a rebuild.

Blake's 1st picks in his rebuild drafts are Turcotte/Byfield/Clarke and take place in the same years as Zegras/Drysdale/MacTavish. It's not impossible that the Kings trio winds up as the better three but the early returns favor the Ducks. Really depends on if Byfield reaches his ceiling since he was rated higher than all of the Ducks guys.

Anyways, I'm not getting in to a "who drafts better" thing between LA and ANA but I feel like it hasn't been a strange opinion to respect Anaheim's drafting for quite some time now.

 

[yankeeking]

No it doesn’t work for me since they have some impressive first round players while ours have been duds so far

Its a lot easier to impress when your team is as bad as the ducks have been , and you only play offence, the best thing that happened to the kings was not getting Kovy in the summer of 2010 because it allowed for us to get better more complete players a little latter and Kovy cherry picked and lost assignments regularly . Hockey is probably the one sport you can't cheat the game, not playing both ways leads to 40 plus years of cup less years . I was hoping the kings would pick Zegras over Dach or whatever center was still there at 5 because we all thought AT would be at 3 to chicago but his overall game is lacking and he will be affected by not playing out his junior years much like turcotte and those others and the fact he can lift a puck up with his stick and throw it into the net a couple times a year does not skill make , thats for the easier amused among us but while he will lead the team in scoring i do not think he will ever lead a team to a cup until he improves his overall game , especially as a teams #1 C , and i am not comparing him to turcotte just saying he is not the best example to make AT a bad pick ,especially since turcotte hasnt been healthy enough to get 20/25 games to settle in ...........now mactavish has looked impressive but we have not seen our pick from the same draft yet, all he did was lead the OHL in scoring as a dman ,even after being suspended for a few games so we shall see

 

[Schrute farms]

I'm in the camp that Zegras is a greatly skilled player, but not (yet) a guy who can make his team a winner.
I'll start being concerned about the Ducks and Zegras when they actually become a playoff team, start winning more than losing and he's a plus player while on the ice. Until then, he's a cartoon / circus act....a sportscenter occasional top10 plays highlight guy whose team doesn't get their game shown because they are a perennial lottery team.

 

[King'sPawn]

He’s good outside the first round. That’s a big problem. Unless Blakey Blake and UnLucky Luc are the ones who are bombing the first round picks.

I’d fire spaghetti and development if I could. Drafting outside of the first round well only means nothing if you can’t land the top end players with high picks. Bombing harder than Hiroshima

I just can't subscribe to this. If someone can find talent beyond the first, then they can find talent in the first.

It's really why I've been beating the development drum. Development, from forward to goaltending, has a VERY GOOD history of developing NHL regulars who last multiple seasons. These are players who regularly played in the NHL from 2006-2016 (I'm avoiding 2017 onward because this is the breakpoint of everyone guaranteed to be waiver eligible, I believe):
Trevor Lewis
Thomas Hickey
Alec Martinez
Dwight King
Drew Doughty
Slava Voynov
Brayden Schenn*
Kyle Clifford
Nic Deslauriers
Jordan Nolan
Nic Dowd
Derek Forbort
Tyler Toffoli
Jordan Weal
Andy Andreoff
Nick Shore
Tanner Pearson
Colin Miller
Dominik Kubalik*
Adrian Kempe
Mike Amadio
Jacob Middleton?
Erik Cernak*
Matt Roy

* these players were either traded very shortly after being drafted or, in Kubalik's case, stopped attending development or training camp. So, I'm wary of crediting development of minimal exposure
? Played his first full season last year, so not an NHL regular yet, but looking like he could be on his way

The Kings have done a good job preparing players to have staying power. My question remains - is there flexibility to help the top prospects develop star power (or at least consistent top-6 viability)?

And while people point out the lack of first round picks for a stretch - that only mitigates so much. I have demonstrated how other teams do more, particularly at forward, from the 2nd round on.