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

[Choralone]

I'm doing the needful again and posting from a new Athletic article, this one from Corey Pronman: Ranking the best NHL players and prospects under 23: Jack Hughes tops the list.

He ranks 170 prospects under 23 and has a writeup for each one. Here's the list of 8 Kings.

LA Kings:

Rank	Tier	Player	Position
22	4	Quinton Byfield	C
33	4	Arthur Kaliyev	RW
87	6	Brandt Clarke	D
108	6	Alex Turcotte	C
123	6	Rasmus Kupari	C
139	6	Samuel Fagemo	RW
160	6	Jordan Spence	D
167	6	Kirill Kirsanov	D

And, since we seem to compare ourselves to them so much lately, the list of 9 Ducks:

Anaheim Ducks:

Rank	Tier	Player	Position
3	1	Trevor Zegras	C
24	4	Mason McTavish	C
34	4	Jamie Drysdale	D
51	5	Olen Zellweger	D
82	6	Nathan Gaucher	C
102	6	Drew Helleson	D
121	6	Isac Lunderström	C
152	6	Pavel Mintyukov	D
166	6	Calle Clang	G

 

[Statto]

EDIT: No idea why there was a double quote, I hate this new forum.

Since injuries are now being used...
Stutzle with a fractured arm was out for 2 months (prior to 2021 season starting): Stützle Injured During Practice, Out 6-8 Weeks

Kupari injury was in 2020.

Vilardi has reportedly been healthy since the end of the 2020 season.

Marco Rossi played all of last season, including 2 in the NHL, after developing heart complications from COVID.

The Kings aren't the only team to have injured prospects. The injuries mitigate some issues, but the deployment of prospects with the Kings is unique. There's one common denominator - it's the Kings.

Excuse and be an apologist all you want, but Yannetti has said himself about the preference to have prospects play defense and that slow-boiling is their choice.

That's not because of injuries. Or COVID. Or internal demons. Or the players not being good enough. Or the celestial alignment of the sky when the players first put on a Kings jersey.

It's an acknowledged preference and tactic. And they aren't showing flexibility on this.

I wasn’t using it as an excuse hence I emphasised my wording of ’some degree’, its more about context.

Stutzle was always more NHL ready and they were very different injuries with different recovery needs. Given that Byfield was always on a longer development curve in my view this coming season is the one he has to make a meaningful step. I was never going to compare their development time lines from the moment they were drafted.

Kupari, yes his injury was 2020 but he lost significant development time. He took some good steps last year and for his draft position and the given context I’m ok for where he is. However another where next year is a must for significant improvement. My hope is that he makes Iafallo unneeded, purely for financial reasons & no I don’t mean I expect him to be as good as AI.

Vilardi, he’s the one where I’m properly worried and whilst he’s been fit there is no that back affected his development timeline and likely his ceiling.

Turcotte just hasn’t stayed fit at all. I don’t think there can be any dispute that hasn’t affected his development.

This was purely in response to a timeline driven assessment which I acknowledged was concerning. I’m just willing to give it another season given the context of the particular players, expected development timeline and the nature of the injuries before my concerns become worries. I’ve also said elsewhere that I’d prefer they were more assertive with things including deployment. However, it’s not the journey it’s the end results and we aren’t there yet.

So in summary, yes I think injuries have had a fairly significant on our prospects development but I also think they haven’t made best use of them or given them enough of a leash at times. In particular the use of Byfield and Kaliyev on the power play and Byfield being given dross line-mates. AA should never have been in the lineup, let alone on the wing of our No 1 prospect and I’ve been vocal about that since the moment he re-signed. I actually don’t mind how they used Arty 5/5 at all but they cannot do that this year and he needs to be on pp1.

 

[dman3474]

September 16 is when the rookie tournament starts in San Jose.

Rookie Face-Off 2022 | San Jose Barracuda

www.sjbarracuda.com

Damn, two more weeks then...

 

[DoktorJeep]

If the development staff or club management had a track record of success, you could point to patience. But the team in charge is learning on the job, so you get fed spin like fans can’t trust their own eyes because they’re missing the full picture.

If for the next 5 years the Kings go on deep runs, sell out the building, develop breakout prospects and pay cap busting salaries to guys on the wrong side of 30, all at the same time and pulled off by a first time staff, then they’ll be a unicorn. Sounds like a bunch of kool aid to keep the dopes happy.

 

[King'sPawn]

I wasn’t using it as an excuse hence I emphasised my wording of ’some degree’, its more about context.

Stutzle was always more NHL ready and they were very different injuries with different recovery needs. Given that Byfield was always on a longer development curve in my view this coming season is the one he has to make a meaningful step. I was never going to compare their development time lines from the moment they were drafted.

Kupari, yes his injury was 2020 but he lost significant development time. He took some good steps last year and for his draft position and the given context I’m ok for where he is. However another where next year is a must for significant improvement. My hope is that he makes Iafallo unneeded, purely for financial reasons & no I don’t mean I expect him to be as good as AI.

Vilardi, he’s the one where I’m properly worried and whilst he’s been fit there is no that back affected his development timeline and likely his ceiling.

Turcotte just hasn’t stayed fit at all. I don’t think there can be any dispute that hasn’t affected his development.

This was purely in response to a timeline driven assessment which I acknowledged was concerning. I’m just willing to give it another season given the context of the particular players, expected development timeline and the nature of the injuries before my concerns become worries. I’ve also said elsewhere that I’d prefer they were more assertive with things including deployment. However, it’s not the journey it’s the end results and we aren’t there yet.

So in summary, yes I think injuries have had a fairly significant on our prospects development but I also think they haven’t made best use of them or given them enough of a leash at times. In particular the use of Byfield and Kaliyev on the power play and Byfield being given dross line-mates. AA should never have been in the lineup, let alone on the wing of our No 1 prospect and I’ve been vocal about that since the moment he re-signed. I actually don’t mind how they used Arty 5/5 at all but they cannot do that this year and he needs to be on pp1.

I understand the point you were making, which is where I feel it mitigates issues to a degree. But I think it's pretty clear there's a subset of people who handwave all concerns because of different issues. I can tell just by seeing half the posts that non-ignored people write.

My apologies for not making that clear.

 

[All The Kings Men]

I think it's pretty clear there's a subset of people who handwave all concerns because of different issues.

What about the subset of people who handwave SOME of the concerns because of different issues but quietly read and nod in agreement with other concerns?

 

[Axl Rhoadz]

I understand the point you were making, which is where I feel it mitigates issues to a degree. But I think it's pretty clear there's a subset of people who handwave all concerns because of different issues. I can tell just by seeing half the posts that non-ignored people write.

My apologies for not making that clear.

Are you a season ticket holder?

 

[kingsfan28]

But is the bolded part maybe a big issue why the Kings have been so bad at being able to get high end players into the NHL lineups? And this goes back well before the time Blake was GM.

Is the "Kings Way" damaging the offensive upside of players? I think a case can certainly be made that is a big issue with why players seem to plateau. I think with some of these guys there were evaluation errors, but if all of them disappoint or plateau and don't live up to draft slot it's just extremely unlikely all of them were evaluated wrong, so it's time to look elsewhere.

This is why I was so mad with the Turcotte pull, you just eliminate a guy from having a chance to have a breakthrough offensive year to turn him into as RJ says, "a good little checker". They probably damaged QB with the AHL year, who knows, they may have damaged Kaliyev's ceiling by having him be a 4th liner, we will see this year but you never know.

You need to let offensive players play to their strengths, and you need to let them develop confidence and have a chance to dominate levels before just pushing them into system players. If you want to make JAD's or Akil Thomas into complete system players that is one thing, but you have to let guys be the guys you believed in on draft night.

And I think most teams do that, it's not just Anaheim and Ottawa. The Kings IMO are the oddballs here with how they develop, not Ottawa and Anaheim.

Compare Ottawa's forwards Stutzle, Tkachuk, Norris vs LA's big 3 forwards. They were all drafted in pretty similar spots and the results have been night and day.

I totally get what your saying, but don't you think any of these guys has to have some sort of defensive awareness and abililty to play in their own end? Kaliev on the top line would've been great , but what good is it if he doesn't know how to defend or be in a position to. What good is it if the dman man pinches and his job is to cover the point and he's unaware of this simple play because all he knows is offense and joins the play instead?

 

[BigKing]

I'm doing the needful again and posting from a new Athletic article, this one from Corey Pronman: Ranking the best NHL players and prospects under 23: Jack Hughes tops the list.

He ranks 170 prospects under 23 and has a writeup for each one. Here's the list of 8 Kings.

LA Kings:
[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]Rank[/TD]
[TD]Tier[/TD]
[TD]Player[/TD]
[TD]Position[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]22[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]Quinton Byfield[/TD]
[TD]C[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]33[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]Arthur Kaliyev[/TD]
[TD]RW[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]87[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]Brandt Clarke[/TD]
[TD]D[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]108[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]Alex Turcotte[/TD]
[TD]C[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]123[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]Rasmus Kupari[/TD]
[TD]C[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]139[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]Samuel Fagemo[/TD]
[TD]RW[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]160[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]Jordan Spence[/TD]
[TD]D[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]167[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]Kirill Kirsanov[/TD]
[TD]D[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

And, since we seem to compare ourselves to them so much lately, the list of 9 Ducks:

Anaheim Ducks:
[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]Rank[/TD]
[TD]Tier[/TD]
[TD]Player[/TD]
[TD]Position[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]Trevor Zegras[/TD]
[TD]C[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]24[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]Mason McTavish[/TD]
[TD]C[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]34[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]Jamie Drysdale[/TD]
[TD]D[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]51[/TD]
[TD]5[/TD]
[TD]Olen Zellweger[/TD]
[TD]D[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]82[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]Nathan Gaucher[/TD]
[TD]C[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]102[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]Drew Helleson[/TD]
[TD]D[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]121[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]Isac Lunderström[/TD]
[TD]C[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]152[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]Pavel Mintyukov[/TD]
[TD]D[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]166[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]Calle Clang[/TD]
[TD]G[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Tough to read that each center prospect on the list might have to play wing when the "Top Rated" pool's biggest asset was supposed to be center depth. It is just one writer's opinion but this is a good reference point for how the Kings prospects are currently being looked at by outsiders. We aren't being haters or anti-Blake posters by simply stating the facts that the bloom is off the rose here a bit due to the early returns not going as hoped.

Ducks have done well the past few drafts and it shows on this list. Kings would have had another one in Faber at 74 so it could have looked a little better.

 

[bland]

I totally get what your saying, but don't you think any of these guys has to have some sort of defensive awareness and abililty to play in their own end? Kaliev on the top line would've been great , but what good is it if he doesn't know how to defend or be in a position to. What good is it if the dman man pinches and his job is to cover the point and he's unaware of this simple play because all he knows is offense and joins the play instead?

Because it is wholly unreasonable for any team coming out of a rebuild to be chasing the playoffs and requiring young, talented players to first prove that they won't hurt that goal INSTEAD of first learning how to apply the very skillset that made them attractive picks in the first place.

There are two goals here: make the playoffs and develop the kids. Blake has prioritized the first while sacrificing the latter. The myriad interviews this summer indicate that the organization believes both are simultaneously possible which comes across as both naivety and hubris - simultaneously.

Since the clear path is to prioritize one over the other so all oars row in the same direction, they need to decide which is preferable. It has to be the kids since the older vets are simply no longer at a Cup caliber level of production and the only "improvement" here is due to Blake fattening up the middle of the roster at the expense of the kids getting acclimated to the NHL while prioritizing their strengths instead of being restricted by their weaknesses.

There is no track record of success using Blake's method. Its a new concept, and while it very well may prove successful down the road, it simply doesn't need to be done at all. There is just no need to do this, no need to play both ends against each other. Pick a road an invest in it fully. If Kopitar, Doughty and Quick were 5 years younger I would support the concept of moving the picks and prospects to augment their chances. But they aren't, and come to think of it, 5 years ago they weren't winning a damn thing either.

There needs to be a clean cut here, not this elongated, slow descent into mediocrity at the expense of a fresh start and a new hope - which is already here if they would just embrace it.

 

[King'sPawn]

I totally get what your saying, but don't you think any of these guys has to have some sort of defensive awareness and abililty to play in their own end? Kaliev on the top line would've been great , but what good is it if he doesn't know how to defend or be in a position to. What good is it if the dman man pinches and his job is to cover the point and he's unaware of this simple play because all he knows is offense and joins the play instead?

It's almost like putting him with a good defensive center, like Danault or Kopitar, would have provided an opportunity to generate offense while learning defense

 

[Axl Rhoadz]

It's amazing you guys go through pages and pages of this stuff. It's not rocket science, the org is trying to do BOTH...compete AND develop the prospects. If you are going to do both, some aspects may suffer. Whether or not it's worth it in the end, NOBODY KNOWS.

If you want to use ANA as a perfect example of drafting and developing...great, but nobody cares about ANA and they suck. So, there's that.

I would assume, for most GMs in the league, this is what they are expected to do because ultimately you need to sell tickets. Obviously, ANA doesn't give a shit about that, but that's nothing new. Blake is trying to have a competitive team, without sacrificing the youth that has been acquired. What the f*** are we debating??

 

[Cianide]

and I still don't buy the digressing argument that playing the kids more would have resulted in missing the playoffs,

Playing the kids would've definitely resulted in not making the playoffs. I don't think there's any question about that.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

It's amazing you guys go through pages and pages of this stuff. It's not rocket science, the org is trying to do BOTH...compete AND develop the prospects. If you are going to do both, some aspects may suffer. Whether or not it's worth it in the end, NOBODY KNOWS.

If you want to use ANA as a perfect example of drafting and developing...great, but nobody cares about ANA and they suck. So, there's that.

I would assume, for most GMs in the league, this is what they are expected to do because ultimately you need to sell tickets. Obviously, ANA doesn't give a shit about that, but that's nothing new. Blake is trying to have a competitive team, without sacrificing the youth that has been acquired. What the f*** are we debating??

No, YOU don't know.

You're right that it's not rocket science; there have been PLENTY of examples of absolute contenders playing their kids--successfully!!--in the top six while developing them.

It's not the forum's fault you have your head up your ass when presented with evidence.

Playing the kids would've definitely resulted in not making the playoffs. I don't think there's any question about that.

Oh, there is plenty of question about that.

Kopitar was a net negative down the stretch. You really think playing him fewer minutes would have hurt?

There was a time PP1 was actually a minus down the stretch. You really think adding 30 seconds to PP2 would have hurt?

Evidence is there that overplaying the vets was actually a problem; people are actually trying to argue it's not? Sorry, the evidence doesn't bear that out.

 

[KINGS17]

It's amazing you guys go through pages and pages of this stuff. It's not rocket science, the org is trying to do BOTH...compete AND develop the prospects. If you are going to do both, some aspects may suffer. Whether or not it's worth it in the end, NOBODY KNOWS.

If you want to use ANA as a perfect example of drafting and developing...great, but nobody cares about ANA and they suck. So, there's that.

I would assume, for most GMs in the league, this is what they are expected to do because ultimately you need to sell tickets. Obviously, ANA doesn't give a shit about that, but that's nothing new. Blake is trying to have a competitive team, without sacrificing the youth that has been acquired. What the f*** are we debating??

Nobody knows? I know. The odds of it working are somewhere between slim and none, and slim is getting uncomfortable in his chair.

As @bland indicated in his post, the current approach has failed time and time again. I will also tell you attendance is not that great with this approach, and if you look and the attendance figures during the "Lombardi rebuilding" years it was never less than 16,500.

Last season average attendance was 14,800 and the season before that it was 16,900, so spare us all the "Blake has to do both BS."

 

[Axl Rhoadz]

No, YOU don't know.

You're right that it's not rocket science; there have been PLENTY of examples of absolute contenders playing their kids--successfully!!--in the top six while developing them.

It's not the forum's fault you have your head up your ass when presented with evidence.

Great, but which kids do we have that are better than the top 6? If you tell me to put Kopitar on the 3rd line, go f*** yourself.

 

[Herby]

I wasn’t using it as an excuse hence I emphasised my wording of ’some degree’, its more about context.

Stutzle was always more NHL ready and they were very different injuries with different recovery needs. Given that Byfield was always on a longer development curve in my view this coming season is the one he has to make a meaningful step. I was never going to compare their development time lines from the moment they were drafted.

Kupari, yes his injury was 2020 but he lost significant development time. He took some good steps last year and for his draft position and the given context I’m ok for where he is. However another where next year is a must for significant improvement. My hope is that he makes Iafallo unneeded, purely for financial reasons & no I don’t mean I expect him to be as good as AI.

Vilardi, he’s the one where I’m properly worried and whilst he’s been fit there is no that back affected his development timeline and likely his ceiling.

Turcotte just hasn’t stayed fit at all. I don’t think there can be any dispute that hasn’t affected his development.

This was purely in response to a timeline driven assessment which I acknowledged was concerning. I’m just willing to give it another season given the context of the particular players, expected development timeline and the nature of the injuries before my concerns become worries. I’ve also said elsewhere that I’d prefer they were more assertive with things including deployment. However, it’s not the journey it’s the end results and we aren’t there yet.

So in summary, yes I think injuries have had a fairly significant on our prospects development but I also think they haven’t made best use of them or given them enough of a leash at times. In particular the use of Byfield and Kaliyev on the power play and Byfield being given dross line-mates. AA should never have been in the lineup, let alone on the wing of our No 1 prospect and I’ve been vocal about that since the moment he re-signed. I actually don’t mind how they used Arty 5/5 at all but they cannot do that this year and he needs to be on pp1.

I think you are placing to much of en emphasis on injury as to why some players have struggled. Does it factor in to reaching a ceiling? Certainly. Does it cause a player to fall significantly off of a ceiling? I don't think so.

Using Turcotte as an example, do you really think injury is the only reason or even the main reason he has failed to really come close to living up to his draft position in any of the season since he was drafted?

I tried pointing this 2.5 years ago, but 1 goal in 19 Big Ten games as a Freshman should have been a real eye-opener. I was met with "cherry picking stats" for not including games vs. Arizona St and Nebraska-Omaha with no future NHL'ers. But against the toughest competition his offensive game was putrid for a Top 5 pick. That has been followed up by 12 goals in 63 career AHL games. It sucks that he has missed time, but let's be honest here, when he has played there just hasn't been any indication that he was a player who has warranted where he was taken. The development decisions sucked, the AHL deployment has sucked, but let's call a spade a spade, the evaluation decision to draft him sucked too. Even had he been healthy, stayed another year in college and been deployed better in the AHL, what is his career projection?

This is kind of true of Vilardi as well, are we really going to believe that Vilardi would have produced a ROI that you expect from a #11 pick had he not been injured?

As KP pointed out, there have been other players to suffer major injuries, but when they have been able to play, (in most cases) they have looked better than Turcotte and Vilardi have.

I totally get what your saying, but don't you think any of these guys has to have some sort of defensive awareness and abililty to play in their own end? Kaliev on the top line would've been great , but what good is it if he doesn't know how to defend or be in a position to. What good is it if the dman man pinches and his job is to cover the point and he's unaware of this simple play because all he knows is offense and joins the play instead?

The defensive awareness and rounding out of the defensive game can be done later on in the NHL career. As discussed before plenty of players have gone that path in the NHL.

Were the Kings expecting Kopitar to be a Selke winner as a 19 and 20 year old? No
Were the Hawks worried about how defensively aware an 18/19 year old Patrick Kane was? No

And there have been numerous other examples (basically every offensive player in the league who became decent defensively). The Ducks and Sens I'm sure will address defensive concerns with Zegras and Stutzle, but the most important thing is developing the offensive game, the Kings don't think that way and the results show it.

The AHL obsession, which produced bizarre development decisions with the Kings two highest picks in a decade just shows that the Kings don't care about maximizing an offensive ceiling, that learning the Kings defensively oriented system is the most important thing. And that is just a very unusual way of developing players you at least claim that you are counting on for offense. The Kings are literally doing it from reverse of most teams.

There is no track record of success using Blake's method.

This is the point that I think the eternal optimist group here just fails to grasp.

No one in the NHL has had more AHL games from teenagers over the last 5 years. That tells me that the Kings are doing this to just pound in the need for these players to be "system players" which is just a terrible way to handle players who may have some upside.

Right now the Kings remind me of Wisconsin and Iowa football with how they develop players with the sole intent to having them work in a system. Those football programs have always limited their ceiling with this thinking, and I think we are seeing the same thing with a lot of Kings prospects. Most notably QB and Kaliyev.

I'm doing the needful again and posting from a new Athletic article, this one from Corey Pronman: Ranking the best NHL players and prospects under 23: Jack Hughes tops the list.

He ranks 170 prospects under 23 and has a writeup for each one. Here's the list of 8 Kings.

LA Kings:
[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]Rank[/TD]
[TD]Tier[/TD]
[TD]Player[/TD]
[TD]Position[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]22[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]Quinton Byfield[/TD]
[TD]C[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]33[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]Arthur Kaliyev[/TD]
[TD]RW[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]87[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]Brandt Clarke[/TD]
[TD]D[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]108[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]Alex Turcotte[/TD]
[TD]C[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]123[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]Rasmus Kupari[/TD]
[TD]C[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]139[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]Samuel Fagemo[/TD]
[TD]RW[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]160[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]Jordan Spence[/TD]
[TD]D[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]167[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]Kirill Kirsanov[/TD]
[TD]D[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

And, since we seem to compare ourselves to them so much lately, the list of 9 Ducks:

Anaheim Ducks:
[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]Rank[/TD]
[TD]Tier[/TD]
[TD]Player[/TD]
[TD]Position[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]Trevor Zegras[/TD]
[TD]C[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]24[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]Mason McTavish[/TD]
[TD]C[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]34[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]Jamie Drysdale[/TD]
[TD]D[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]51[/TD]
[TD]5[/TD]
[TD]Olen Zellweger[/TD]
[TD]D[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]82[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]Nathan Gaucher[/TD]
[TD]C[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]102[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]Drew Helleson[/TD]
[TD]D[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]121[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]Isac Lunderström[/TD]
[TD]C[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]152[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]Pavel Mintyukov[/TD]
[TD]D[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]166[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]Calle Clang[/TD]
[TD]G[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Tough to look at, and I don't agree with everything, but still this group just got passed by with other teams who develop prospects in a more traditional way. It's pretty bad for a team that had four 1st round picks in the top 11 over a five year period to produce a list like that.

With QB, I like the raw talent but his ranking is probably fair and it's not entirely his fault. Unlike Vilardi and Turcotte the development decisions really probably have damaged the ceiling significantly.

D+1, Age 18 year wasted in the AHL gaining nothing.
D+2, Age 19 year playing minimal minutes with bad players while looking lost in the NHL.

But Year 2 and all the issues that came with it are a result of the poor decisions of Year 1, so you just keep compounding the problem. Suddenly you have two seasons since drafting the highest player you'd picked in a dozen years with really nothing to show for it.

This is why so many are angry and disappointed with the development choices and can't just say "But 3rd place in the Pacific!" to try and gloss over those problems and poor choices.

 

[KINGS17]

Great, but which kids do we have that are better than the top 6? If you tell me to put Kopitar on the 3rd line, go f*** yourself.

You pick your best kids and play them in the spots they were drafted to play in someday until you have evidence that your draft pick was a swing at a pitch in the dirt. It doesn't matter if they are better than some over-30 top six who won't be around in a couple of years.

 

[Axl Rhoadz]

Nobody knows? I know. The odds of it working are somewhere between slim and none, and slim is getting uncomfortable in his chair.

As @bland indicated in his post, the current approach has failed time and time again. I will also tell you attendance is not that great with this approach, and if you look and the attendance figures during the "Lombardi rebuilding" years it was never less than 16,500.

Last season average attendance was 14,800 and the season before that it was 16,900, so spare us all the "Blake has to do both BS."

Didn't know you were Nostradamus and can predict the future in 5 years...I can't

You think last year's attendance may have something to do with this pandemic thing called Covid? lol, seriously dude?

 

[KINGS17]

Playing the kids would've definitely resulted in not making the playoffs. I don't think there's any question about that.

So what?

 

[KINGS17]

Didn't know you were Nostradamus and can predict the future in 5 years...I can't

You think last year's attendance may have something to do with this pandemic thing called Covid? lol, seriously dude?

Well, since I correctly predicted what would happen as far as the Kings being contenders back when Kopitar signed his deal, I think I might have a few ounces of credibility based on watching hockey for a lifetime.

@bland is 100% correct. Blake is plumping up the middle of the roster, to make the playoffs, which only puts up more roadblocks for developing kids at the NHL level. If as many like @Raccoon Jesus and @King'sPawn have said the Kings were making the playoffs with the kids playing, then you have something to crow about.

I would have gladly seen the Kings miss the playoffs last season if Byfield, Kaliyev, etc. were given more ice time in their proper roles.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

You pick your best kids and play them in the spots they were drafted to play in someday until you have evidence that your draft pick was a swing at a pitch in the dirt. It doesn't matter if they are better than some over-30 top six who won't be around in a couple of years.

Fair enough...but when......drafted in 2017, playing in 2017-2018?

Well, since I correctly predicted what would happen as far as the Kings being contenders back when Kopitar signed his deal, I think I might have a few ounces of credibility based on watching hockey for a lifetime.

@bland is 100% correct. Blake is plumping up the middle of the roster, to make the playoffs, which only puts up more roadblocks for developing kids at the NHL level. If as many like @Raccoon Jesus and @King'sPawn have said the Kings were making the playoffs with the kids playing, then you have something to crow about.

I would have gladly seen the Kings miss the playoffs last season if Byfield, Kaliyev, etc. were given more ice time in their proper roles.

Just saying the bolded part.....but as a Kings fan you should be surprised ANY time they make the playoffs, and be happy about it.....I remember watching with the Triple Crown line during that entire time before Gretzyk, during Gretzky, after Gretzky......and every time they made the playoffs it was more of a oh shit...now what moment.....

 

[Axl Rhoadz]

Well, since I correctly predicted what would happen as far as the Kings being contenders back when Kopitar signed his deal, I think I might have a few ounces of credibility based on watching hockey for a lifetime.

Ok, so what's your prediction for the next 5 years?

 

[King'sPawn]

Playing the kids would've definitely resulted in not making the playoffs. I don't think there's any question about that.

The only 30+ year-old who played more than Kopitar was Patrick Kane, who is more than a year younger (August '87 vs Nov '88 birthdate).

Kane had 2:06 of shorthanded ice time ALL SEASON. Kopitar had 138:05 for comparison.

Kopitar has had among the most and hardest minutes of any forward. The only player near Kopitar as far as difficult minutes is JT Miller, who is almost 6 years younger.

If the ONLY recipe for the Kings success is to overplay Kopitar, then they'll be in deep shit when he retires. They're still playing him almost 21 minutes a game.

Why is it sacrilege to suggest reducing Kopitar's minutes, so he'll be fresher for his hard minutes, and redistributing them to, say, Byfield or Kaliyev? Why couldn't they get some playing time with some of the skilled players? Is it really impossible to imagine a paradigm where the Kings make the playoffs without Kopitar being overplayed? ESPECIALLY since they just went over half the season without Doughty?

 

[FSL KINGS]

The kids will develop better having more responsibility at a younger age. Don't need to pad their stats with soft assignments so they can ask for more money as they try & pull off a lacrosse style goal & not back check. Get out there & earn your opportunity.

I'm transitioning to a grumpy old guy!!!!!