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

[Herby]

A 30 year old signed for 6-8 years with a full NMC is not easily moved. Retain what fot that long? What assets are coming back for the kind of guy the championship fans say to never sign due to age and natural regression? You don't get assets for 30 year olds signed forever. You get them for top level 25 year olds, or 20 year old uber prospects.

If you'd like to argue that 17-18 was the worst possible season, I can dig it. If they had only been a bottom 5 team that year, instead of the one after re-signing Doughty, then maybe he remains a soon to be UFA between the summer of 2018 and the 2019 deadline, and he's out. But, like every contract that anyone on this team signed after winning the Cup in 2012, it worked out poorly.

Byfield just turned 20 a few weeks ago, and Clarke turns 20 in Feb. Again, why the rush to declare them failed leaders of the franchise? Maybe they do suck because they're not already NHL stars at 19, but why so eager to say they won't be?

You're heaping praise on Chicago, giving them decent odds to be a team built the right way, without knowing much of anyone they're going go build around. You don't know who they're going to draft, or what moves they're going to make within the next 3-5 years, but they have a better chance to win. Simply because potential can be anything. They've drafted almost nobody in their tear down, but it's already a success, because they might draft the next McDavid or Kucherov.

Just like a car. The moment you take it off the lot, it losses value. The unknown draft pick is more valuable than the more known prospect, because it's not an actual player with flaws yet. The second you use the pick, the unknown potential losses value, because the variable is now more known.

Again with the absolute declarations. Vilardi and Turcotte are a derailed disaster. Not might be, but are. Maybe they are. Vilardi cannot contribute this year though? It's over? Just like Danault isn't getting 27g, Kempe isn't getting 35, and they're not making the playoffs if Doughty misses 40 games. None of that is possible. Vilardi cannot get 20g this year. It's impossible for that to happen. It will not, cannot, and won't happen. At all. That's set in stone.

It is not really about getting assets for Doughty, just as someone said of Blake going in that direction was doing those guys a "solid", so would granting their wish to be traded away from a rebuild they didn't want to be a part of. You probably get some contending teams first round pick and maybe a secondary youth asset to add to the truckload of secondary assets the Kings already have. Maybe you get a 1st and a Turcotte like middle-six prospect and a solid lockerroom vet on a deal expiring within the next couple of years. Is it an amazing return? No, but it sets the table for adding more pieces and sends the right message that LA does right to its players.

I think you greatly overstate how difficult it would be to trade Doughty. Karlsson was traded, and the return was monumental, why is it so impossible to think LA could have done that?

I am not declaring them failed leaders of the franchise, I am just saying that it's all your marbles with two guys, they are the only Kings prospects who could possibly even project as 1C and 1D. How sure are you that Byfield is a Kopitar, Stamkos or Toews type of 1C? What if he is PLD or Brayden Schenn? What if he is Nolan Patrick?

Yes, the Vilardi and Turcotte picks are a disaster. Players their ages are already establishing themselves as core players for teams around the league and the Kings enter years 6 and 4 with nothing to show for it. What other words can you use to describe it? Vilardi spent the majority of his age 22 year in the AHL and Turcotte has never come close to replicating his offensive production as a 17 year old in any of the subsequent seasons. What other word than disaster do you use for those results from an 11 and a 5 pick?

Do you know the history of players taken in the Top 5 who are not established as solid NHL players by their year 4 season? Why would things be so different here? Why are the Kings players always going to be the major outliers? When do we return to the point we were in a dozen years ago when a lot of our core players were under 23? Why is that such an impossible thing to strive for now?

Could Vilardi get 20G? Sure, is it likely? No. Could Kempe get 45 goals? Yes is it likely? No. Blake Lizotte could score 20? sure. Is it likely? no

I never said Chicago is perfect or that they are a guarantee. They could end up like Buffalo or Arizona. All I said was they are trying to use a model that has produced all of the multi-cup champions since the last lockout and the Kings are using a model that has never been tried before with SC winning success (adding core pieces through FA and trades to add to players in the twilight of their careers). Hey if it works out and the Kings win the Stanley Cup I'll be the first to admit I was wrong.

@King'sPawn , correct about those teams never having five consecutive Top 5 picks but they also did a much better job of hitting on their picks and didn't necessitate the need to try and add more.

Pittsburgh ended up with Fleury, Malkin, Crosby and Letang over a 3 draft period. They were all stars within a very short period of time.

The Kings ended up with Kopitar, Quick and Doughty over a 4 draft period. They were all stars within a short period of time.

Tampa ended up with Stamkos, Hedman and Kucherov over a 3 draft period. They were all stars within a very short period of time.

Chicago ended up with Kane and Toews in back to back drafts. They were stars within a short period of time.

All these teams won multiple championships over the last dozen years.

The current Kings are not in any way close to any of these teams. So what do you do when the high draft picks flop and don't return the expected value?

Is anyone here complaining about the turning the page if Vilardi was a 2C ready to take the next step? Is anyone made if Turcotte had won the Hobey Baker as a sophomore or had a Dylan Larkin type freshman season and seamlessly transitioned to the NHL as a difference maker? These are reasonable expectations for players taken that high, but the reality is that hasn't been the case, and the odds of any kind of turnaround to be those types of players are almost none.

 

[johnjm22]

Last 10 SC winners:

2022: Colorado: Mckinnon (1st), Landeskog (2nd), Makar (4th)
2021: Tampa Bay: Stamkos (1st), Hedman (1st)*
2020: Tampa Bay: Stamkos (1st), Hedman (1st)*
2019: St. Louis: Pietrangelo (4th)
2018: Washington: Ovechkin (1st), Backstrom (4th)
2017: Pittsburgh: Crosby (1st), Malkin (1st), MAF (1st)
2016: Pittsburgh: Crosby (1st), Malkin (1st), MAF (1st)
2015: Chicago: Toews (3rd), Kane (1st)
2014: LA: Doughty (2nd)**
2013: Chicago: Toews (3rd), Kane (1st)
2012: LA: Doughty (2nd)**

*Used additional top 5 pick (Drouin) to acquire Sergachev
**Used additional top 5 picks (Schenn) to acquire Mike Richards.

Every team that's won the cup in the last 10 years has been reliant on top 5 picks they selected themselves.

Very difficult to build an SC winner without some top 5 picks.

 

[Sol]

Which is why I think you’d have to be an idiot to think the Kings are in a good spot with their top 5 picks looking mediocre and our best players in the twilight of their careers. This is exactly why I think this season is going to be the most important one of the decade because it will determine if the Kings are moving up into the playoffs and contending soon because the prospects are coming into their own, or this season will demonstrate comfortably that we are going to be rebuilding again very soon.

The kings are at the tipping point. While Blake has been excellent in his trades, and acquisitions the drafting and development have been terrible

 

[Herby]

Last 10 SC winners:

2022: Colorado: Mckinnon (1st), Landeskog (2nd), Makar (4th)
2021: Tampa Bay: Stamkos (1st), Hedman (1st)*
2020: Tampa Bay: Stamkos (1st), Hedman (1st)*
2019: St. Louis: Pietrangelo (4th)
2018: Washington: Ovechkin (1st), Backstrom (4th)
2017: Pittsburgh: Crosby (1st), Malkin (1st), MAF (1st)
2016: Pittsburgh: Crosby (1st), Malkin (1st), MAF (1st)
2015: Chicago: Toews (3rd), Kane (1st)
2014: LA: Doughty (2nd)**
2013: Chicago: Toews (3rd), Kane (1st)
2012: LA: Doughty (2nd)**

*Used additional top 5 pick (Drouin) to acquire Sergachev
**Used additional top 5 picks (Schenn) to acquire Mike Richards.

Every team that's won the cup in the last 10 years has been reliant on top 5 picks they selected themselves.

Very difficult to build an SC winner without some top 5 picks.

And this is why a team like Chicago is doing what they are doing. Or a team like Ottawa just came out of it. Is it guaranteed to work? Nope, no one is saying that, but it is without question the most proven way to do it. It is like Winston Churchill said about Capitalism "It is the worst economic system, except for all the others that have been tried"

I wouldn't include the Blues in the group though, they were kind of the outlier in the last decade. But again, do you want to model after a bunch of teams with multiple Stanley Cup wins or 1 team that won but never made it beyond the 2nd round any of the other times doing it the other way.

And Edmonton gets lumped into the bad groups but really, give them credit they realized they weren't going to win anything with Hall, Yakupov, RNH and all their either failed or disappointing picks and just kept accumulating and ended up with two of the best players in the world in back to back drafts, they made the conference final last year as a pretty young team and will be favorites to win the pacific for the next few years at least (they are a pretty significant favorite this year at +190, Calgary 2nd at +250) Their big problem is the Colorado obstacle in front of them and everyone else.

 

[kilowatt]

It’s not crazy to think that Byfield and Clarke still have plenty of time to become the next Kopitar and Doughty. But Kopitar, Doughty, and Quick are all top 100 all time at their positions, so the truth is that the stars really aligned for us. Winning championships is really hard.

 

[johnjm22]

And this is why a team like Chicago is doing what they are doing. Or a team like Ottawa just came out of it. Is it guaranteed to work? Nope, no one is saying that, but it is without question the most proven way to do it. It is like Winston Churchill said about Capitalism "It is the worst economic system, except for all the others that have been tried"

I wouldn't include the Blues in the group though, they were kind of the outlier in the last decade. But again, do you want to model after a bunch of teams with multiple Stanley Cup wins or 1 team that won but never made it beyond the 2nd round any of the other times doing it the other way.

And Edmonton gets lumped into the bad groups but really, give them credit they realized they weren't going to win anything with Hall, Yakupov, RNH and all their either failed or disappointing picks and just kept accumulating and ended up with two of the best players in the world in back to back drafts, they made the conference final last year as a pretty young team and will be favorites to win the pacific for the next few years at least (they are a pretty significant favorite this year at +190, Calgary 2nd at +250) Their big problem is the Colorado obstacle in front of them and everyone else.

STL is the outlier in that group, but they still had to select in the top 5 at least once.

7 of those 10 teams had 1st OA picks.

In the cap era, Boston, Anaheim, and Detroit all won the cup without needing to select top 5, but they, like St. Louis, haven't been able to repeat. While teams that used multiple top 5 picks did.

Boston, Anaheim and Detroit also had huge strokes of luck and the later two were largely built pre-cap era. Not exactly models that can be replicated.

 

[King'sPawn]

The current Kings are not in any way close to any of these teams. So what do you do when the high draft picks flop and don't return the expected value?

Fix your infrastructure first. Develop what you have into valuable pieces and go from there.

If your newly developed core pushes your team into playoff contention, you ride it out and give them the chance they earn. If your team isn't playoff-bound, then you start trades and having discussions of rebuilding.

You don't keep flailing until you get it right. Because if the foundation and vision doesn't coincide with what you have and what you get, your "playoff contender" or "top-5 pick" question is meaningless anyway.

 

[Herby]

Fix your infrastructure first. Develop what you have into valuable pieces and go from there.

If your newly developed core pushes your team into playoff contention, you ride it out and give them the chance they earn. If your team isn't playoff-bound, then you start trades and having discussions of rebuilding.

You don't keep flailing until you get it right. Because if the foundation and vision doesn't coincide with what you have and what you get, your "playoff contender" or "top-5 pick" question is meaningless anyway.

But what if fixing the infrastructure involves being bad for more years?

Did Edmonton's infrastructure improve enough for them to draft two top-five players or did being bad just enable them to finally draft those players?

The Chicago Bears have not drafted a good QB since FDR was President. But knowing how having a good QB in the NFL is so important, how do you give up? I think the same applies to adding multiple difference making players in the NHL.

Or does it have to involve doing what the Kings did and make improvements at the NHL level even if maybe the progression of the youth might not warrant it to have young players develop in a stable place?

What players do you think have a better chance to develop into difference making star players. Kids taken top 5 and entering bad situations or players taken 15 entering into more solid ones?

Buffalo, they had their own versions of Vilardi and Turcotte in Middlestadt and Nylander, the Eichel situation was obviously it's own issue that effected the organization but is it really going to have any effect on Power, Dahlin, Quinn and Savoie?

 

[AbsentMojo]

But what if fixing the infrastructure involves being bad for more years?

Did Edmonton's infrastructure improve enough for them to draft two top-five players or did being bad just enable them to finally draft those players?

The Chicago Bears have not drafted a good QB since FDR was President. But knowing how having a good QB in the NFL is so important, how do you give up? I think the same applies to adding multiple difference making players in the NHL.

Or does it have to involve doing what the Kings did and make improvements at the NHL level even if maybe the progression of the youth might not warrant it to have young players develop in a stable place?

What players do you think have a better chance to develop into difference making star players. Kids taken top 5 and entering bad situations or players taken 15 entering into more solid ones?

Buffalo, they had their own versions of Vilardi and Turcotte in Middlestadt and Nylander, the Eichel situation was obviously it's own issue that effected the organization but is it really going to have any effect on Power, Dahlin, Quinn and Savoie?

Dont want to derail your thesis for a minor detail - just thought Id point out that Punky QB was pretty good - esp in the shuffle

The Chicago Bears have not drafted a good QB since FDR was President. But knowing how having a good QB in the NFL is so important, how do you give up? I think the same applies to adding multiple difference making players in the NHL.

Dont want to derail your thesis over a detail, but Punky QB was solid for a few years before getting drilled into the turf by the packers.

 

[King'sPawn]

But what if fixing the infrastructure involves being bad for more years?

Did Edmonton's infrastructure improve enough for them to draft two top-five players or did being bad just enable them to finally draft those players?

The Chicago Bears have not drafted a good QB since FDR was President. But knowing how having a good QB in the NFL is so important, how do you give up? I think the same applies to adding multiple difference making players in the NHL.

Or does it have to involve doing what the Kings did and make improvements at the NHL level even if maybe the progression of the youth might not warrant it to have young players develop in a stable place?

What players do you think have a better chance to develop into difference making star players. Kids taken top 5 and entering bad situations or players taken 15 entering into more solid ones?

Buffalo, they had their own versions of Vilardi and Turcotte in Middlestadt and Nylander, the Eichel situation was obviously it's own issue that effected the organization but is it really going to have any effect on Power, Dahlin, Quinn and Savoie?

If they're bad for more years, fine. The point is to focus on fixing the infrastructure. Not focus on being bad.

Edmonton has just picked McDavid and Draisaitl. That's their core of impact players. This is after drafting RNH, Yakupov, Hall, and McDavid 1st overall from 2010-15. What good did picking them all do aside from being a roadblock to a champ this year?

With the Kings, they have good pieces NOW even if it hasn't worked out yet. They need to take care of what they have now, and work to improve internally, instead of thinking "well, we biffed these picks. Let's start over." It's a lousy way to treat your active and franchise players who are committed to winning.

Of course, players taken higher will have a better chance of succeeding than middling picks. But if you provide an infrastructure that enables the success of middling picks, then it's more likely to also support the success of top picks.

A successful organization needs to hit on their top picks, yes. But a successful organization should not have their success be dependent on acquiring top picks. It's a key difference. Top picks are a piece of the success. Not the foundation.

 

[Schrute farms]

It's so sad the Quinton Byfield era is over. Has anyone heard what time his retirement news conference is scheduled for?
Clarke too apparently (although he's not technically a top 5 pick). Of course Turcotte as well (that one just might be).

 

[BigKing]

STL is the outlier in that group, but they still had to select in the top 5 at least once.

7 of those 10 teams had 1st OA picks.

In the cap era, Boston, Anaheim, and Detroit all won the cup without needing to select top 5, but they, like St. Louis, haven't been able to repeat. While teams that used multiple top 5 picks did.

Boston, Anaheim and Detroit also had huge strokes of luck and the later two were largely built pre-cap era. Not exactly models that can be replicated.

But St. Louis had a 5OA in Schenn so they still had more than one Top 5 pick.

I've banged this drum before but as it relates to the number of 1st round picks on a team. They don't all have to be Top 5 or 10 (although as you've shown, there is always at least one) but there is a big-time number of them on all Cup winning rosters.

I could be wrong on this count as I'm not double-checking, but I believe the Kings had 11 total fist round picks on the 2014 team. Top 5 scorers were all 1st rounders including a 2OA and 3OA in Doughty and Gaborik. Schultz only played seven games but they needed each and everyone of them: even he was a 1st round pick. I count five 2nd round picks as well. Out of 22 skaters and one goalie, that is 16 1st or 2nd round picks.

They obviously don't have to be all homegrown but you probably aren't getting that elite guy unless you draft him. Again, I stress the importance of Byfield hitting his draft-day potential. It's also a part of why I liked the Danault signing: adding a 1st round pick who was proven at the NHL level. Just added another one in Fiala.

Kings now have 10 1st round picks on the roster, although that is generous by including Lias and Vilardi isn't a lock.

 

[All The Kings Men]

STL is the outlier in that group, but they still had to select in the top 5 at least once.

7 of those 10 teams had 1st OA picks.

In the cap era, Boston, Anaheim, and Detroit all won the cup without needing to select top 5, but they, like St. Louis, haven't been able to repeat. While teams that used multiple top 5 picks did.

Boston, Anaheim and Detroit also had huge strokes of luck and the later two were largely built pre-cap era. Not exactly models that can be replicated.

Anaheim also had Chris Pronger who was a #2 overall pick...

 

[johnjm22]

But St. Louis had a 5OA in Schenn so they still had more than one Top 5 pick.

I've banged this drum before but as it relates to the number of 1st round picks on a team. They don't all have to be Top 5 or 10 (although as you've shown, there is always at least one) but there is a big-time number of them on all Cup winning rosters.

I could be wrong on this count as I'm not double-checking, but I believe the Kings had 11 total fist round picks on the 2014 team. Top 5 scorers were all 1st rounders including a 2OA and 3OA in Doughty and Gaborik. Schultz only played seven games but they needed each and everyone of them: even he was a 1st round pick. I count five 2nd round picks as well. Out of 22 skaters and one goalie, that is 16 1st or 2nd round picks.

They obviously don't have to be all homegrown but you probably aren't getting that elite guy unless you draft him. Again, I stress the importance of Byfield hitting his draft-day potential. It's also a part of why I liked the Danault signing: adding a 1st round pick who was proven at the NHL level. Just added another one in Fiala.

Kings now have 10 1st round picks on the roster, although that is generous by including Lias and Vilardi isn't a lock.

Anaheim also had Chris Pronger who was a #2 overall pick...

I'm not talking about having players on your roster that happen to have been former 5 picks. Colorado also had EJ, and STL had JayBo.

I'm talking about having top 5 selections you made (usually due to sucking).

 

[Sol]

It’s not crazy to think that Byfield and Clarke still have plenty of time to become the next Kopitar and Doughty. But Kopitar, Doughty, and Quick are all top 100 all time at their positions, so the truth is that the stars really aligned for us. Winning championships is really hard.

Bro I don’t buy this bullshit whatsoever. Kopitar and Doughty were special the second they were drafted and hit the ice. I’m not coming down on you but let’s not lump them with hall of famers who were special immediately. Both played immediately on the Kings and in kopitars first game he took a shit on Pronger and had two goals.

Byfield can’t even fathom caressing kopitars balls.

And the whole thing with Clarke being blackballed for some insidious reasons I don’t buy it either so he doesn’t even have anything close to doughtys hype. And if Clarke was that good there’s no way they can blackball him without there being serious blowback

Byfield if he’s lucky will become a poor man’s Jeff Carter

 

[Herby]

It's so sad the Quinton Byfield era is over. Has anyone heard what time his retirement news conference is scheduled for?
Clarke too apparently (although he's not technically a top 5 pick). Of course Turcotte as well (that one just might be).

Who said that the Byfield era is over? Don’t build Axl strawmans, come on you are better than that, no one said that, just that you have 1 name in the hat for a realistic 1c option when the expectation was you probably had 3 with the picks you had between 17, 19, 20. Should Blake have adjusted the time-frame based on those developments? How can we be so sure that QB is the Kopitar level talent the Kings will need to take the next step? Are you more confident in finding that player if you have QB + Shane Wright/Logan Cooley + Adam Fantili after this year? Or maybe you get lottery luck and get Bedard. But either way, placing all of the weight of the rebuild on one player who was mishandled at 18 and struggled mightily at 19 is a tough spot to put him in.

What are the odds QB is one of these 3 players?
Anze Kopitar?
PLD?
Nolan Patrick?

The last time you committed to moving forward with a rebuild you had a locked in 21 year old 1C with over 200 NHL games of experience at an all-star level and a locked in 19 year old 1D coming off a rookie year so good he was chosen to represent Team Canada in the Olympics.

As for Turcotte, again, the history of players who have begun their careers like this, I know every Kings player is an outlier here, but what makes anyone think he becomes the type of player John listed in his post? I think even his most ardent supporters are no longer projecting him to be what they projected him to be 2-3 years ago. He can still slot into a middle of the lineup role if he can stay healthy, but it sure seems like the Kings had the attitude to move forward with the rebuild to contending for the playoffs stage without much of anything from the youth they so heavily invested in. Again if it's Zegras and Suzuki it's not the same scenario, but we have to accept the fact that we didn't draft those types of players and act accordingly with the rebuild.

My guess is they wanted no matter what to get something out of the final years of DD and AK and when the picks fizzled out they transitioned to adding veterans in their prime. We will see, maybe it works, but. no team in the cap era has won a championship being constructed that way.

 

[barriers]

 

[KingsFan7824]

It is not really about getting assets for Doughty, just as someone said of Blake going in that direction was doing those guys a "solid", so would granting their wish to be traded away from a rebuild they didn't want to be a part of. You probably get some contending teams first round pick and maybe a secondary youth asset to add to the truckload of secondary assets the Kings already have. Maybe you get a 1st and a Turcotte like middle-six prospect and a solid lockerroom vet on a deal expiring within the next couple of years. Is it an amazing return? No, but it sets the table for adding more pieces and sends the right message that LA does right to its players.

I think you greatly overstate how difficult it would be to trade Doughty. Karlsson was traded, and the return was monumental, why is it so impossible to think LA could have done that?

I am not declaring them failed leaders of the franchise, I am just saying that it's all your marbles with two guys, they are the only Kings prospects who could possibly even project as 1C and 1D. How sure are you that Byfield is a Kopitar, Stamkos or Toews type of 1C? What if he is PLD or Brayden Schenn? What if he is Nolan Patrick?

Yes, the Vilardi and Turcotte picks are a disaster. Players their ages are already establishing themselves as core players for teams around the league and the Kings enter years 6 and 4 with nothing to show for it. What other words can you use to describe it? Vilardi spent the majority of his age 22 year in the AHL and Turcotte has never come close to replicating his offensive production as a 17 year old in any of the subsequent seasons. What other word than disaster do you use for those results from an 11 and a 5 pick?

Do you know the history of players taken in the Top 5 who are not established as solid NHL players by their year 4 season? Why would things be so different here? Why are the Kings players always going to be the major outliers? When do we return to the point we were in a dozen years ago when a lot of our core players were under 23? Why is that such an impossible thing to strive for now?

Could Vilardi get 20G? Sure, is it likely? No. Could Kempe get 45 goals? Yes is it likely? No. Blake Lizotte could score 20? sure. Is it likely? no

I never said Chicago is perfect or that they are a guarantee. They could end up like Buffalo or Arizona. All I said was they are trying to use a model that has produced all of the multi-cup champions since the last lockout and the Kings are using a model that has never been tried before with SC winning success (adding core pieces through FA and trades to add to players in the twilight of their careers). Hey if it works out and the Kings win the Stanley Cup I'll be the first to admit I was wrong.

@King'sPawn , correct about those teams never having five consecutive Top 5 picks but they also did a much better job of hitting on their picks and didn't necessitate the need to try and add more.

Pittsburgh ended up with Fleury, Malkin, Crosby and Letang over a 3 draft period. They were all stars within a very short period of time.

The Kings ended up with Kopitar, Quick and Doughty over a 4 draft period. They were all stars within a short period of time.

Tampa ended up with Stamkos, Hedman and Kucherov over a 3 draft period. They were all stars within a very short period of time.

Chicago ended up with Kane and Toews in back to back drafts. They were stars within a short period of time.

All these teams won multiple championships over the last dozen years.

The current Kings are not in any way close to any of these teams. So what do you do when the high draft picks flop and don't return the expected value?

Is anyone here complaining about the turning the page if Vilardi was a 2C ready to take the next step? Is anyone made if Turcotte had won the Hobey Baker as a sophomore or had a Dylan Larkin type freshman season and seamlessly transitioned to the NHL as a difference maker? These are reasonable expectations for players taken that high, but the reality is that hasn't been the case, and the odds of any kind of turnaround to be those types of players are almost none.

Karlsson was traded with a year left on a great contract, after Ottawa started sucking. And the return was not monumental when done, but it turned out to be.

Did the Kings have a lot of 1C and 1D prospects prior to 2012? It was Kopitar, Doughty....and that's it. You can argue Schenn, but he never had the chance to develop here. He was traded before the team ever won a playoff series. Oh yeah, and also they missed on the 4th overall pick.

Why did the Kings have to sign or trade for so many players on the Cup teams?

Kopitar was drafted before DL's rebuild, and not by DL. Quick wasn't some hot shot prospect. And also not drafted by DL.

Again, my biggest question is what's the rush to declare it all a failure? What's the skin off your nose to wait and see what happens? Why do you have to be so right now, that you're more than willing to be wrong if they happen to do anything?

 

[Herby]

If they're bad for more years, fine. The point is to focus on fixing the infrastructure. Not focus on being bad.

Edmonton has just picked McDavid and Draisaitl. That's their core of impact players. This is after drafting RNH, Yakupov, Hall, and McDavid 1st overall from 2010-15. What good did picking them all do aside from being a roadblock to a champ this year?

With the Kings, they have good pieces NOW even if it hasn't worked out yet. They need to take care of what they have now, and work to improve internally, instead of thinking "well, we biffed these picks. Let's start over." It's a lousy way to treat your active and franchise players who are committed to winning.

Of course, players taken higher will have a better chance of succeeding than middling picks. But if you provide an infrastructure that enables the success of middling picks, then it's more likely to also support the success of top picks.

A successful organization needs to hit on their top picks, yes. But a successful organization should not have their success be dependent on acquiring top picks. It's a key difference. Top picks are a piece of the success. Not the foundation.

What pieces in the Kings system project to be comparable to the players that John posted that made-up the vast majority of championship teams since the lockout?

Do you believe Byfield and Clark can be those players? I am not necessarily saying they won't be but I am also saying it's very unlikely, it's way more than likely that they simply aren't as good as any of the players John listed from those cup winning teams. If Byfield is PLD and Clarke is John Klingberg, which I don't think are unfair expectations (high or low) can the Kings win a championship in that scenario?

I think your 3rd and 5th paragraphs kind of contradict a bit. The Kings have already missed on getting an expected ROI of a 5 and and an 11. They desperately needed one of those to have been a hit by now.

 

[Herby]

Karlsson was traded with a year left on a great contract, after Ottawa started sucking. And the return was not monumental when done, but it turned out to be.

Did the Kings have a lot of 1C and 1D prospects prior to 2012? It was Kopitar, Doughty....and that's it. You can argue Schenn, but he never had the chance to develop here. He was traded before the team ever won a playoff series. Oh yeah, and also they missed on the 4th overall pick.

Why did the Kings have to sign or trade for so many players on the Cup teams?

Kopitar was drafted before DL's rebuild, and not by DL. Quick wasn't some hot shot prospect. And also not drafted by DL.

Again, my biggest question is what's the rush to declare it all a failure? What's the skin off your nose to wait and see what happens? Why do you have to be so right now, that you're more than willing to be wrong if they happen to do anything?

They didn't wait to see what happens though.

They went full into contender mode with...

6 games for Byfield
0 games for Clarke
0 games for Turcotte
54 games for Vilardi

That is just so much different from what these other teams did, including the Kings. How can you compare the Kings youth in 2009 when they went to contender mode to the Kings youth in 2021 when they did?

The Kings used their excess of youth to complete the 2012 team, Jack Johnson was a much more valuable asset than people realize here. He wasn't some give away, he was on the 2010 US Olympic Team.

Schenn was one of the most valuable prospects in the NHL

Simmonds was "barely old enough to buy a beer" and contributing in the NHL as a solid 2-way force.

Nothing wrong with adding veteran secondary pieces at the expense of your secondary youth if your main youth are already capable of being the stars of the team. Doughty and Kopitar were those players.

 

[redcard]

# of top 5 picks since 2000

ANA:3
ARZ: 5
BOS:2
BUF:5
CAL:1
CAR:6
CBJ:7
CHI:4
COL:5
DAL:1
DET:1
EDM:6
FLA: 7
LAK: 5
MIN:2
MON:4
NAS:1
NJ:5
NYI:7
NYR:2
OTT:4
PHI:4
PIT:5
SEA:2
STL:2
TOR:4
TB: 4
VAN:2
WAS:3
WIN (ATL):6

(only SJ and LVK did not have a top 5 pick in this span)

# of Cups since 2000

ANA: 1
BOS: 1
CAR:1
CHI:3
COL:2
DET:2
LAK:2
NJ:2
PIT:3
STL:1
TB:3
WAS:1

(Always worth pointing out that SJ is also absent from this list)

(not trying to make a correlation point, as NJ for example won their cups in the early 2000s and had their picks recently)

 

[BigKing]

I'm not talking about having players on your roster that happen to have been former 5 picks. Colorado also had EJ, and STL had JayBo.

I'm talking about having top 5 selections you made (usually due to sucking).

I know. I was just pointing out that they still had two Top 5 picks leading in to my case of having a lot of first rounders on title teams.

Hell...Colorado also had Jack Johnson as another Top 5 pick and you left off Byram as one of their own Top 5 picks.

It's not a wild take that Cup teams have a lot of talent on them so it makes sense that they would have a lot of 1st round picks. We're getting there with the sheer number of 1st round picks. Added a pretty good one in Danault last year that instantly made the team better. Fiala is another first-round legit guy added.

For the next three seasons tops--since I'm including #11--they should get good contributions from first round picks Kopitar/Doughty/Kempe/Danault/Fiala. Blakes first four 1st rounders look like supporting players at best and his 2017 and '18 2nd rounders are highly questionable too.

There is no realistic Cup contention without Byfield turning into a #1C. If he can at least turn in to a very good 2C and Clarke is a legit #1D, then we could be talking.

There is a post talking about the end of the Byfield era. I get the joke and we aren't close on that yet but the curtain is closing on Vilardi and Turcotte being elite and it is kind to say it is closing. If Jim Fox is saying that they look at Turcotte as an "elite 3rd line C" then expectations have been significantly lowered. Kupari should have a role solely based on skating ability and he has the 1st round pedigree so I think he will be a piece of the future but so much of this rebuild is riding on Byfield and Clarke.

 

[King'sPawn]

What pieces in the Kings system project to be comparable to the players that John posted that made-up the vast majority of championship teams since the lockout?

Do you believe Byfield and Clark can be those players? I am not necessarily saying they won't be but I am also saying it's very unlikely, it's way more than likely that they simply aren't as good as any of the players John listed from those cup winning teams. If Byfield is PLD and Clarke is John Klingberg, which I don't think are unfair expectations (high or low) can the Kings win a championship in that scenario?

I think your 3rd and 5th paragraphs kind of contradict a bit. The Kings have already missed on getting an expected ROI of a 5 and and an 11. They desperately needed one of those to have been a hit by now.

I try to avoid comparisons, so I don't feel comfortable answering the first paragraph. What I am saying is, if LA wants an offensively-driven team, then Byfield, Clarke, Vilardi, Kaliyev, etc were put on a path to drive Blake's vision, we'd have a better idea if the picks were "hits" or not.

As it stands, they've been put in checking and defensive roles. We don't know how they fit. We know the Kings want them to grow into a top role. But we haven't had a PLD or Klingberg really play and thrive on the Kings.

CAN Clarke and Byfield be impact players on a contending team? I think they can. But the Kings have yet to show an ability to develop a PLD type of player. Do you think Byfield would have put up only 10 points on Tampa Bay last year?

Regarding the contradictions, I simply think the Kings have good pieces that haven't shown signs of stardom yet. They have talent though. They need to pick a direction for what they want from the prospects. If they want a defensive team, focus on drafting two-way players. If they want offense, don't make it a priority to develop defense out of your snipers.

I just don't hold the circumstances of the prospects against them, as I feel this is why they haven't hit yet. I don't think it's a talent issue.

 

[BringTheReign]

# of top 5 picks since 2000

ANA:3
ARZ: 5
BOS:2
BUF:5
CAL:1
CAR:6
CBJ:7
CHI:4
COL:5
DAL:1
DET:1
EDM:6
FLA: 7
LAK: 5
MIN:2
MON:4
NAS:1
NJ:5
NYI:7
NYR:2
OTT:4
PHI:4
PIT:5
SEA:2
STL:2
TOR:4
TB: 4
VAN:2
WAS:3
WIN (ATL):6

(only SJ and LVK did not have a top 5 pick in this span)

# of Cups since 2000

ANA: 1
BOS: 1
CAR:1
CHI:3
COL:2
DET:2
LAK:2
NJ:2
PIT:3
STL:1
TB:3
WAS:1

(Always worth pointing out that SJ is also absent from this list)

(not trying to make a correlation point, as NJ for example won their cups in the early 2000s and had their picks recently)

It would be interesting to see a weighted average year length between a team's top 5-10 draft pick years and the years they won the Cup.

 

[BringTheReign]

Anaheim also had Chris Pronger who was a #2 overall pick...

And had a #3 overall pick in Scott Niedermayer fall into their lap because of his brother Rob.

Turns out when you have two of the top 25 defensemen of all-time you win.