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

[Herby]

meh, vilardi got screwed by TM with ice time. when he got regular time in 2021 he produced.

He was gift wrapped a 2nd line C spot despite not being able to skate effectively enough to play that position in the NHL. And played almost the entire season. Blake thought so much if his performance that he signed Danault and moved Vilardi to the wing. So it wasn’t just TM’s doing.

And maybe it wasn’t his fault, maybe the back injury was the reason, but whatever the reason there aren’t many guys who skate as bad who playing in the league anymore. And the ones who do are mostly 4th line physical forwards and large crease clearing defenders. Not finesse scorers.

Unfortunately for Vilardi he was born about 20-25 years to late. He’d have been useful from 95-2004.

 

[cyclones22]

And his example isn’t wrong, if you were in the real world, in the private sector and had results this poor from your big investments you would likely be fired by now. I don’t deny the successes of the later rounds but finding 2nd pair defenders in the 4th round and 3rd and 4th kind forwards as UDFA is great and deserves praise, but those don’t mean much if the big ticket investments that you spent a ton on don’t come close to returning value. Blake as GM has a bigger area to judge from, and the FA and trades make it easier to believe in Blake, but the scouting is more black and white, either the results are there or they aren’t.

That's the thing about sports fans, is that they turn into the biggest hypocrites. And I'm one of them! Yet all of a sudden the rules of how you would govern your life do not apply to your favorite sports franchises or players. My favorite is expecting a player to take a home team discount. Like you would do that with your job. Hell no you wouldn't in most cases.

If Quinton Byfield were your kid and he showed the proclivity to become a great doctor, you would do everything in your power to make sure that he reached his potential. You would not send him to a second rate medical school and think if he's got it, he'll make it regardless. That would not be your attitude towards his development of his potential. You also would not hope he is surrounded with the worst doctors on the staff to learn from.

The utter ridiculousness of believing that you should have to carry bad coworkers in order to prove how good you are at your job is amazing to me. Especially if you're just breaking in. Companies do not surround their prized new hires with their worst employees who are leaving the company.

 

[Herby]

That's the thing about sports fans, is that they turn into the biggest hypocrites. And I'm one of them! Yet all of a sudden the rules of how you would govern your life do not apply to your favorite sports franchises or players. My favorite is expecting a player to take a home team discount. Like you would do that with your job. Hell no you wouldn't in most cases.

If Quinton Byfield were your kid and he showed the proclivity to become a great doctor, you would do everything in your power to make sure that he reached his potential. You would not send him to a second rate medical school and think if he's got it, he'll make it regardless. That would not be your attitude towards his development of his potential. You also would not hope he is surrounded with the worst doctors on the staff to learn from.

The utter ridiculousness of believing that you should have to carry bad coworkers in order to prove how good you are at your job is amazing to me. Especially if you're just breaking in. Companies do not surround their prized new hires with their worst employees who are leaving the company.

Yeah. See with Vilardi and Turcotte I think it was more scouting/evaluation maybe with some bad luck mixed in. That is where I differ with RJ and KP, I think there were fatal flaws with both that were going to make it where the ROI was never going to be there.

With QB it’s not a talent issue. QB has the tools to be a star on the league but he has been in the organization for 2 years and what have they done.

Year 1, despite overwhelmingly great results from high picks around the league being in the NHL at 18, and 24 of the previous 26 top picks being in the league in D+1 and the Kings having an opening to center a solid veteran in Jeff Carter in a rebuild year the Kings sent QB to play in the AHL. A league with much less success for developing 18 year olds.

Year 2, with only six games of NHL experience instead of the 56 he’d have had on probably any other team in the league the Kings expect QB to jump into a team that is now looking to contend for the playoffs. Gone is the no-pressure 2nd line spot next to Jeff Carter, instead it’s a high pressure 3rd line spot on a team playing the most 1 goal-games in the league playing limited ice time next to a franchise icon running on fumes and a mercenary on a 1 year deal. And then eventually next to another rookie who does many things well but isn’t an offensive player and another winger who can’t keep up with the pace of the game. Very minimal PP opportunities to grow his offensive game. I disagree with ppl that try and say he wasn’t bad, he was bad, in fact many nights he was terrible. And a lot of that goes back to the decision not to have him up the year before and the opportunity to learn things in 20-21 that he has to learn in 21-22 for a coach who may have been coaching for his job if they didn’t make the playoffs.

It’s just been a complete shit show with so many development and deployment mistakes it’s almost hard to believe they would do this to a guy they took #2 overall.

 

[Schmooley]

Yeah. See with Vilardi and Turcotte I think it was more scouting/evaluation maybe with some bad luck mixed in. That is where I differ with RJ and KP, I think there were fatal flaws with both that were going to make it where the ROI was never going to be there.

With QB it’s not a talent issue. QB has the tools to be a star on the league but he has been in the organization for 2 years and what have they done.

Year 1, despite overwhelmingly great results from high picks around the league being in the NHL at 18, and 24 of the previous 26 top picks being in the league in D+1 and the Kings having an opening to center a solid veteran in Jeff Carter in a rebuild year the Kings sent QB to play in the AHL. A league with much less success for developing 18 year olds.

Year 2, with only six games of NHL experience instead of the 56 he’d have had on probably any other team in the league the Kings expect QB to jump into a team that is now looking to contend for the playoffs. Gone is the no-pressure 2nd line spot next to Jeff Carter, instead it’s a high pressure 3rd line spot on a team playing the most 1 goal-games in the league playing limited ice time next to a franchise icon running on fumes and a mercenary on a 1 year deal. And then eventually next to another rookie who does many things well but isn’t an offensive player and another winger who can’t keep up with the pace of the game. Very minimal PP opportunities to grow his offensive game. I disagree with ppl that try and say he wasn’t bad, he was bad, in fact many nights he was terrible. And a lot of that goes back to the decision not to have him up the year before and the opportunity to learn things in 20-21 that he has to learn in 21-22 for a coach who may have been coaching for his job if they didn’t make the playoffs.

It’s just been a complete shit show with so many development and deployment mistakes it’s almost hard to believe they would do this to a guy they took #2 overall.

What do you think is the solution? Should someone lose their job if Byfield struggles the entire year and Clarke cant out perform Walker and Edler during a 9 game stint?
Does the drafting philosophy need to change or does the personnel in charge of drafting and developing need to change?
I agree with a lot of your points I just dont know what the issue stems from. I dont know if I blame Yanetti because I think Stutzle would be in a similar position to LAs prospects if he was here.

 

[johnjm22]

Yeah. See with Vilardi and Turcotte I think it was more scouting/evaluation maybe with some bad luck mixed in.

Rank	Player	Pos.	Primary Team	ISS	Marek	McKenzie	Button	HP	FC	THN
1	Nolan Patrick	C	Brandon (WHL)	1	1	2	2	2	1	1
2	Nico Hischier	C	Halifax (QMJHL)	2	2	1	1	1	2	2
3	Miro Heiskanen	D	HIFK (SM-Liiga)	4	3	3	5	3	3	6
4	Gabriel Vilardi	C	Windsor (OHL)	3	6	5	6	7	4	3
5	Cale Makar	D	Brooks (AJHL)	9	9	4	3	4	7	5
6	Casey Mittelstadt	C	Eden Prairie (USHS)	7	8	6	9	8	5	4
7	Cody Glass	C	Portland (WHL)	6	5	8	4	6	10	10
8	Martin Necas	C	HC Kometa Brno (Extraliga)	13	10	11	7	9	9	12
9	Elias Pettersson	C	Timra IK (Allsvenskan)	20	15	7	8	5	8	9
10	Owen Tippett	RW	Mississauga (OHL)	5	4	10	23	22	6	7

Those are the consolidated 2017 pre-draft rankings.

If a consensus top 5 guy falls to you at 11, it pretty hard to argue against taking him.

The next two picks after Vilardi were Necas and Suzuki. Had Gabe not been there, I wonder if we would have taken one of them.

 

[King'sPawn]

What do you think is the solution? Should someone lose their job if Byfield struggles the entire year and Clarke cant out perform Walker and Edler during a 9 game stint?
Does the drafting philosophy need to change or does the personnel in charge of drafting and developing need to change?
I agree with a lot of your points I just dont know what the issue stems from. I dont know if I blame Yanetti because I think Stutzle would be in a similar position to LAs prospects if he was here.

The thing is, if a prospect struggles, the same people saying "OMG U NEED 2 B PASHINT" will say "HE SUCKS, SEND HIM TO ECHL" (this is an exaggeration, though I wouldn't be surprised if someone decides to start a fight about it).

A player needs legitimate time (up to 15 games) in a bigger role. Of course, if a player can't keep up at all, you scale back the responsibility. If he manages to hold his own, you keep him there.

Nobody has said to keep a struggling prospect in a top-6 role all season. What we've advocated is to show the same patience for a prospect as would be afforded to, say, an Iafallo or Moore, who had the opportunity to play through their slump.

As for Clarke, same thing. The other thing is, there's an alternate universe where he stays for more than 9 games but gets sent down to the OHL if he still struggles. The 9 games are only to allow a contract to slide. It's not catastrophic to burn a year after giving him a quarter of a season if it's still unclear.

 

[Herby]

What do you think is the solution? Should someone lose their job if Byfield struggles the entire year and Clarke cant out perform Walker and Edler during a 9 game stint?
Does the drafting philosophy need to change or does the personnel in charge of drafting and developing need to change?
I agree with a lot of your points I just dont know what the issue stems from. I dont know if I blame Yanetti because I think Stutzle would be in a similar position to LAs prospects if he was here.

The solution IMO is to just stick with proven development paths that other teams have done with similar prospects. There is no need to re-invent the wheel, which I think the Kings have done to the detriment of many of their prospects.

If you think a player is worthy of a #2 pick in the draft the expectation should be that player is ready to be significant contributor by year 2, maybe year 3 at the latest (and if they aren't going to be, consider picking someone else at #2). Get them ready to be that player ASAP, even if it's a red-shirt year. Plenty of top picks had red shirt years where they weren't ready but still grew as players in the NHL and were more easily able to become that contributor in year 2 and 3.

Look at the insane difference in results for players who play two-years of college vs. one. Ok, I get it, you use a #5 on a kid and the expectation is he's atleast Dylan Larkin and is NHL ready at 19. I had the same expectation when the Kings took an NCAA player 5OA, it wasn't unreasonable. And had he been that type of player he could have left and joined the NHL squad. But lets deal with reality, that wasn't the situation, it wasn't even close. Alex Turcotte was nowhere close to being a dominant college player, but that wasn't the end of the world. Perhaps he goes back the next year and gets closer to that level and can make the jump. The names of players who played 2 years in the NCAA speaks for itself. There was absolutely zero risk to playing a second year at Wisconsin and a ton of risk that making the jump to the AHL was going to damage longterm upside and potential, Rob Blake should have known better.

Let a kid who had a nice but not dominant D+1 in Finland maybe take that next step in his domestic league at 19. See if he can take a next step offensively and cross the pond as a confident player who might be ready to make some noise at the ancient age of 20.

Don't send them all to the AHL where there is much less proven success for teenage players, because you have some weird need to have everyone play there. Still waiting for anyone who defends this strategy to explain why the Kings need to have so much AHL usage for all their prospects while other teams don't.

I think every one of these situations would have been handled differently by the majority of NHL teams, and it's fair to question why the Kings made the development decisions they did.

As far as Clarke. Him making the NHL or at least getting a 9 game tryout is more of a normal development path for a player taken #7 in the draft. Is it the end of the world if he gets sent down again? No it's not, but it's also within reasonable expectation that he would make the team. When the Kings took him int he 2021 draft I'm sure they figured if things went right he might have a chance.

The continued issues will be...

1. Will the Kings risk losing a player to keep Clarke up?

And that could easily be a forward, the Kings could keep 8 defenseman up and risk losing someone like JAD, Lias or Vilardi to waivers. This is where the poor management of depth and fringe type prospects comes back. It would be insanely stupid to send down a player who warrants a spot because you are afraid of losing a long-shot 23 year old "prospect" to waivers.

2. Will the Kings let him play in the NHL without spending time at their precious AHL affiliate?

If you listen to Glen Murray, who I'm sure speaks on behalf of his boss the Kings feel that only "McDavid types" can play in the NHL without any AHL experience. Again this is totally debunked by actually doing about 5 minutes of research, but this is how the Kings feel. Clarke could blow everyone away at camp but he might be sent down just because the Kings don't trust any young players to jump from junior or college without first being in the AHL.

 

[Schmooley]

The solution IMO is to just stick with proven development paths that other teams have done with similar prospects. There is no need to re-invent the wheel, which I think the Kings have done to the detriment of many of their prospects.

If you think a player is worthy of a #2 pick in the draft the expectation should be that player is ready to be significant contributor by year 2, maybe year 3 at the latest (and if they aren't going to be, consider picking someone else at #2). Get them ready to be that player ASAP, even if it's a red-shirt year. Plenty of top picks had red shirt years where they weren't ready but still grew as players in the NHL and were more easily able to become that contributor in year 2 and 3.

Look at the insane difference in results for players who play two-years of college vs. one. Ok, I get it, you use a #5 on a kid and the expectation is he's atleast Dylan Larkin and is NHL ready at 19. I had the same expectation when the Kings took an NCAA player 5OA, it wasn't unreasonable. And had he been that type of player he could have left and joined the NHL squad. But lets deal with reality, that wasn't the situation, it wasn't even close. Alex Turcotte was nowhere close to being a dominant college player, but that wasn't the end of the world. Perhaps he goes back the next year and gets closer to that level and can make the jump. The names of players who played 2 years in the NCAA speaks for itself. There was absolutely zero risk to playing a second year at Wisconsin and a ton of risk that making the jump to the AHL was going to damage longterm upside and potential, Rob Blake should have known better.

Let a kid who had a nice but not dominant D+1 in Finland maybe take that next step in his domestic league at 19. See if he can take a next step offensively and cross the pond as a confident player who might be ready to make some noise at the ancient age of 20.

Don't send them all to the AHL where there is much less proven success for teenage players, because you have some weird need to have everyone play there. Still waiting for anyone who defends this strategy to explain why the Kings need to have so much AHL usage for all their prospects while other teams don't.

I think every one of these situations would have been handled differently by the majority of NHL teams, and it's fair to question why the Kings made the development decisions they did.

As far as Clarke. Him making the NHL or at least getting a 9 game tryout is more of a normal development path for a player taken #7 in the draft. Is it the end of the world if he gets sent down again? No it's not, but it's also within reasonable expectation that he would make the team. When the Kings took him int he 2021 draft I'm sure they figured if things went right he might have a chance.

The continued issues will be...

1. Will the Kings risk losing a player to keep Clarke up? A

nd that could easily be a forward, the Kings could keep 8 defenseman up and risk losing someone like JAD, Lias or Vilardi to waivers. This is where the poor management of depth and fringe type prospects comes back.

2. Will the Kings let him play in the NHL without spending time at their precious AHL affiliate?

If you listen to Glen Murray, who I'm sure speaks on behalf of his boss the Kings feel that only "McDavid types" can play in the NHL without any AHL experience. Again this is totally debunked by actually doing about 5 minutes of research, but this is how the Kings feel. Clarke could blow everyone away at camp but he might be sent down just because the Kings don't trust any young players to jump from junior or college without first being in the AHL.

Yea but who is making these decisions is what Im asking? Is it Blake? Is it the development team? Who is responsible for these decisions and should there be consequences if none of Byfield Clarke Turcotte Vilardi pan out?

 

[Herby]

[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]Rank[/TD]
[TD]Player[/TD]
[TD]Pos.[/TD]
[TD]Primary Team[/TD]
[TD]ISS[/TD]
[TD]Marek[/TD]
[TD]McKenzie[/TD]
[TD]Button[/TD]
[TD]HP[/TD]
[TD]FC[/TD]
[TD]THN[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]Nolan Patrick[/TD]
[TD]C[/TD]
[TD]Brandon (WHL)[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]Nico Hischier[/TD]
[TD]C[/TD]
[TD]Halifax (QMJHL)[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]Miro Heiskanen[/TD]
[TD]D[/TD]
[TD]HIFK (SM-Liiga)[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]5[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]Gabriel Vilardi[/TD]
[TD]C[/TD]
[TD]Windsor (OHL)[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]5[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]7[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]5[/TD]
[TD]Cale Makar[/TD]
[TD]D[/TD]
[TD]Brooks (AJHL)[/TD]
[TD]9[/TD]
[TD]9[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]7[/TD]
[TD]5[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]Casey Mittelstadt[/TD]
[TD]C[/TD]
[TD]Eden Prairie (USHS)[/TD]
[TD]7[/TD]
[TD]8[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]9[/TD]
[TD]8[/TD]
[TD]5[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]7[/TD]
[TD]Cody Glass[/TD]
[TD]C[/TD]
[TD]Portland (WHL)[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]5[/TD]
[TD]8[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]10[/TD]
[TD]10[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]8[/TD]
[TD]Martin Necas[/TD]
[TD]C[/TD]
[TD]HC Kometa Brno (Extraliga)[/TD]
[TD]13[/TD]
[TD]10[/TD]
[TD]11[/TD]
[TD]7[/TD]
[TD]9[/TD]
[TD]9[/TD]
[TD]12[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]9[/TD]
[TD]Elias Pettersson[/TD]
[TD]C[/TD]
[TD]Timra IK (Allsvenskan)[/TD]
[TD]20[/TD]
[TD]15[/TD]
[TD]7[/TD]
[TD]8[/TD]
[TD]5[/TD]
[TD]8[/TD]
[TD]9[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]10[/TD]
[TD]Owen Tippett[/TD]
[TD]RW[/TD]
[TD]Mississauga (OHL)[/TD]
[TD]5[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]10[/TD]
[TD]23[/TD]
[TD]22[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]7[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Those are the consolidated 2017 pre-draft rankings.

If a consensus top 5 guy falls to you at 11, it pretty hard to argue against taking him.

The next two picks after Vilardi were Necas and Suzuki. Had Gabe not been there, I wonder if we would have taken one of them.

Yet, 7-8 other teams that reasonably could have taken him all passed. Is it fair to ask why that was? I mean, I think I know the answer has to be one of 2 things, but this is a chicken and an egg debate because some people think that one potential reason was not pre-draft and was only a result of injuries post-draft. But there isn't a way to prove it either way.

Since that draft there has not been a player taken in the top half of the first round who skates as poorly as Gabe has skated as an NHL player. Again there is debate about what is the cause of the poor skating and how poor it was in pre-draft evaluations. But it is certainly a possibility that all those teams were scared off by the skating. While its also a possibility that had he been healthy his skating could have been adequate enough where he could have been a 2nd liner.

Either way, the point was that by the time they became professionals both Vilardi and Turcotte had significant fatal flaws that were going to prevent them from returning the type of player you expect from 5 and 11 picks. Where Byfield has no such flaws in his game but has been woefully mishandled his first 2 years in the league, in ways that other teams would likely not have done, based on overwhelming historical evidence.

Yea but who is making these decisions is what Im asking? Is it Blake? Is it the development team? Who is responsible for these decisions and should there be consequences if none of Byfield Clarke Turcotte Vilardi pan out?

We have no idea. For all we know it could be Nelson Emerson and Glen Murray convincing Blake to get everyone to Ontario asap. But as the GM and the person in charge of all hockey operations it ultimately falls on Blake, even if he is persuaded by others.

The evaluation stuff is easier to excuse than the unorthodox and damaging development decisions though. As John posted, the Kings did not reach on either Vilardi or Turcotte, they took them where they were ranked. That could just be bad luck more than bad evaluation. But it also could have been that had the Kings not taken those guys they each fall more spots as other teams maybe saw flaws the Kings didn't, we just don't know and will never know. The only thing we get is little nuggets of information like Rosen saying that there was "internal debate" about whether to take Turcotte or Zegras. For all we know Yanetti was pounding on the table to take Zegras and Blake overruled him, or the other way around. The only way we might ever find out is when people leave the organization (like Bob Clarke saying Hextall overruled the scouts to take Patrick over Makar or Mike Futa saying the Kings were going to take Barzal had they kept their pick in 2015). But until that happens there is no way Yanetti or Blake throw each other under the bus for whoever won out and made the wrong decision.

Maybe it was bad luck and no team could have known how big skating would become in the coming years, thus greatly minimizing Vilardi's potential impact in the NHL.

Maybe it was bad luck and no team could have known that Turcotte's offensive game would not translate to higher levels as well as his NTDP peers drafted after him and the Kings just drew the short straw and a bad draft position. If it had been the way it was back in the day and players were drafted after their freshman year he goes nowhere close to 5 in the 2020 draft. More bad luck.

You can chalk up those to bad luck if you want, but the development decisions on these players had nothing to do with luck. They were just poor and unorthodox decisions that went completely against traditional and proven methods.

 

[Statto]

Yea but who is making these decisions is what Im asking? Is it Blake? Is it the development team? Who is responsible for these decisions and should there be consequences if none of Byfield Clarke Turcotte Vilardi pan out?

Short answer yes, even though I’m the eternal optimist and like Blake. We can rationalise every players development issues and there are some legitimate elements of bad luck in there. BUT if they all miss then you have to look at the bigger picture and Luc, Blake & TM should all be concerned about their futures. There will have to be some accountability.

I actually think the one guy I’d definitely keep is Yanetti because he is evaluating talent based on what the guys above him are looking for in terms of team make-up. I think he’s doing that correctly, based on the way they want to build the organisation. So we already know that he had Byfield and Stutzle tied (Blake’s call on the pick), he didn’t want Hickey at #4 and he didn’t want the plank of wood D man (mind block on his name) in the first round. We all say that our late round drafting is great (2nd onwards) and that is where Yanetti has pretty much full control. There’s a lesson there. Of course when he’s interviewed he’s not going to throw Luc or Blake under the bus, where appropriate and I’m sure he’s made a mistake now and then also. Nobody hits on 100% of things.

There are legitimate reasons why the guys are taking longer than we all hoped and expected. However those reasons don’t cut it as excuses if they all miss. If Byfield and Clarke hit (there’s still every chance they do) then all will be good with the world. Although, we will then have years of tit-for-tat arguments with people proclaiming RJ, Herby etc can’t celebrate future success of those players because of the fair concerns raised currently. They will be proclaimed as hypocrites, fair weather fans… etc which is nonsense of course.

Something to look forward to… I hope.

 

[KingsFan7824]

Have you ever invested before ? Do you know why people diversify their portfolio? It’s to mitigate the effect of potential loss. Let me simplify it for you.

When you Invest a lot of money into a stock, that price can fluctuate from your by in which is how you gain or lose money from your original investment. And let’s say you invest purely into the tech sector and that sector becomes rough. You usually already have a plan to invest in a different sector to offset potential losses.

Kings have invested in these prospects and they haven’t been looking good regardless of how much time they need. They just haven’t and that’s a fact. Blake who’s main concern is to make a competitive team to save his job will likely go out of his way to invest externally to mitigate losses so the team can be relatively competitive on the chance that the forwards suck.

Hopefully you get it now. Sure maybe with more time they will get better, but none of them except maybe Kupari and Kaliyev have taken a step forward. That’s not close to being good enough with where the kings have been drafting. And whether you like to believe it or not. Those spots at top 6 are sure closing and they’re closing externally not internally. There’s no way you can deny that. And if you agree with that you should ask yourself what the motive of that would be. How can icetime realistically change? Todd has not even shown any signs of equal icetime distribution. It’s HEAVILY skewed top heavy. You except that to change with top 6 getting locked in externally?

It's just a constant denial of possibility. After a year of possibilities. There's no way Kempe is scoring 35. He barely scored 35 over the last 3 seasons combined. He hasn't done it, so he won't do it. There's no way Danault is scoring 27. He's coming off 5 goals, and barely has 27 over the last 3 years. He hasn't done it, so he won't do it. There's no way the Kings can make the playoffs if Doughty misses half the season. They don't have the kind of depth to overcome something like that. They can barely make the playoffs with him, so without him, they're twice as bad.

There's no way ice time might change. It was one way one year, and cannot possibly be any different in another year. Not that it will, but there's no way it could. Because it didn't happen, so it can't. A young guy, he didn't play well last year, so he's got no chance of playing well this year, because he had a bad year. You can't have a good year after a bad year. The only thing that can happen is what happened. You can 100% have a bad year after a good year though. The only type of change that can happen is bad.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

Your list is a little misleading.

Kempe is currently 26
Moore is currently 27 and will turn 28 this season
Roy is currently 27 and will turn 28 this season
Lemeiux is currently 26 and will turn 27 this season
Walker is currently 27 and will be 28 this season

I think the big concern is how the last playoff run was driven by veteran players. the top 8 scorers on the team were 34, 25, 29, 29, 27, 28, 32, 37.

You can list a bunch of players who spent a couple of games on the roster playing small roles, but the truth is the team did have veterans driving the team last season. I can totally get feeling optimistic, but you at least have to understand where other people are coming from when they question the future of the team.

I took the ages off of hockey DB.....and I didn't verify them, just figured they would be accurate...

The problem is, most of them were questing the future of the team as we were winning, their tune hasn't changed in the 62 years LA has been around

 

[Axl Rhoadz]

It's just a constant denial of possibility. After a year of possibilities. There's no way Kempe is scoring 35. He barely scored 35 over the last 3 seasons combined. He hasn't done it, so he won't do it. There's no way Danault is scoring 27. He's coming off 5 goals, and barely has 27 over the last 3 years. He hasn't done it, so he won't do it. There's no way the Kings can make the playoffs if Doughty misses half the season. They don't have the kind of depth to overcome something like that. They can barely make the playoffs with him, so without him, they're twice as bad.

There's no way ice time might change. It was one way one year, and cannot possibly be any different in another year. Not that it will, but there's no way it could. Because it didn't happen, so it can't. A young guy, he didn't play well last year, so he's got no chance of playing well this year, because he had a bad year. You can't have a good year after a bad year. The only thing that can happen is what happened. You can 100% have a bad year after a good year though. The only type of change that can happen is bad.

Bravo....

 

[FSL KINGS]

Iafallo had many dogshit performances last year. Brown also. AA literally handed a puck to McDavid that led to a goal and was rewarded with ice time.
Vilardi looked bad. No sugarcoating it. But youd think theyd let him work through it just like they allowed veteran players to work through it.

They did let him work through it, in the AHL. The things Vilardi needed to work on are compete level, moving his feet & using his size to hold onto pucks. Those are all base skills that should be developed in the AHL.

Hope Vilardi has gotten the message finally or he's going to end up some place like MTL or Philly.

 

[funky]

I know we are down on Vilardi around here. Wheelers recent article shows others outside the org are starting to question the pick stating his lack of pace should have kept him lower on his list but also conceding the back injury and the lack of opportunity in a role that suits him has hurt.

My question is are we too hard on him. Me missed a year and a half of hockey after the draft getting his back straightened out. He hits the NHL in 2019 scoring on a 57 point pace in limited games and just under a ppg in the AHL.

2020 he is handed the 2C spot and scores at over half a point per game pace in his true rookie season. If we got this out of Byfield, Turcotte or Kupari we would be to busy pleasuring ourselves to type on this forum.

2021 he is converted to RW, Heads down to the AHL and scores a ppg learning a new position after having one hell of an NHL preseason. So up to this point his progression is looking very good. He then is handed limited minutes (13) in the NHL during a playoff chase with the following linemates:

looking at him pure stat wise it seems that the outlier was his last quarter in the NHL only putting up 7 points. 4 of which were in the last 2 games. He seems to put points up other wise.

Could we be too critical? I know he is already 23 but there has been injuries and setbacks that he has now overcame. He is 6'3, 215 pounds and healthy. Can he take that next step?


2017 draft by scoring leaders

Kind of a crappy draft. If he takes the next step he can rocket up this list.

Last year we saw Norris and Thomas take a big step. Could Vilardi still have a chance? He has played half the games as most others on this list, Just don't want to give up hope too fast.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

How the future of the team was going to be talented 24-26 year olds......your words.

Kempe - 24
Moore - 26
Kaliyev - 20
Durzi - 22
Lizotte - 23
Roy - 26
Grndustrom - 23
Lemieux - 25
Kupari - 21
Byfield - 19
Spence - 20
Anderson - 22
Bjornfot - 20
Vilardi - 22
Walker - 26
Moveare - 23
Fagemo - 21
Turcotte - 20
JAD - 21

Additions
Fiala - 26

Hmmmmmmmmm.........BTW all of those listed above, played games for LA this last season....

Clock is ticking, yet only 4 of those players (including Fiala) move out of that 24-26 category.....

Talk about holy overreactions

Where's the 1C, 1D, and 1G on that list? They aged out.

Great, you can fill out a bunch of 3rd lines and 2nd d pairings. You just built Seattle. Congrats!

Just a random thought…it took #3 overall pick, Olli Jokinen +300 NHL games before he was premier forward in the league.

300….

I really like that study that shows the 'average' prospect needs 200 games but the really big and really small guys need 400.

Of course, with the way the Kings hand out icetime...

Iafallo had many dogshit performances last year. Brown also. AA literally handed a puck to McDavid that led to a goal and was rewarded with ice time.
Vilardi looked bad. No sugarcoating it. But youd think theyd let him work through it just like they allowed veteran players to work through it.

I'm sorry but I'm still laughing that I called this halfway through last year. I literally said AA is the kind of player who is going to cost a playoff series but I figured it would be a lackadaisical check, not literally handing the puck to the best player in the world and skating away

But hey, at least he got a bunch of games over Grundstrom, Vilardi, and other prospects, that's looking REALLY useful now.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

One of the things I will miss most about Quick is his masks, f***ing legend.

This one is amongst the best.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

Where's the 1C, 1D, and 1G on that list? They aged out.

Great, you can fill out a bunch of 3rd lines and 2nd d pairings. You just built Seattle. Congrats!



I really like that study that shows the 'average' prospect needs 200 games but the really big and really small guys need 400.

Of course, with the way the Kings hand out icetime...





I'm sorry but I'm still laughing that I called this halfway through last year. I literally said AA is the kind of player who is going to cost a playoff series but I figured it would be a lackadaisical check, not literally handing the puck to the best player in the world and skating away

But hey, at least he got a bunch of games over Grundstrom, Vilardi, and other prospects, that's looking REALLY useful now.

You ask where the 1C, 1D are on that list....

Actually nevermind, it's not actually worth the time explaining to you how team construction works.....you either don't get it, or don't care enough TO try and understand it.....

 

[Fat Elvis]

Ahh the joys of reading thru off-season posts. Hope with a mix of conjecture and hysteria.

At least there's games this weekend. Fun to see who looks strong against their peers.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

You ask where the 1C, 1D are on that list....

Actually nevermind, it's not actually worth the time explaining to you how team construction works.....you either don't get it, or don't care enough TO try and understand it.....

No, you're right, I don't get it...please, don't waste your time!

 

[Herby]

I know we are down on Vilardi around here. Wheelers recent article shows others outside the org are starting to question the pick stating his lack of pace should have kept him lower on his list but also conceding the back injury and the lack of opportunity in a role that suits him has hurt.

My question is are we too hard on him. Me missed a year and a half of hockey after the draft getting his back straightened out. He hits the NHL in 2019 scoring on a 57 point pace in limited games and just under a ppg in the AHL.

2020 he is handed the 2C spot and scores at over half a point per game pace in his true rookie season. If we got this out of Byfield, Turcotte or Kupari we would be to busy pleasuring ourselves to type on this forum.

2021 he is converted to RW, Heads down to the AHL and scores a ppg learning a new position after having one hell of an NHL preseason. So up to this point his progression is looking very good. He then is handed limited minutes (13) in the NHL during a playoff chase with the following linemates:

View attachment 584806

looking at him pure stat wise it seems that the outlier was his last quarter in the NHL only putting up 7 points. 4 of which were in the last 2 games. He seems to put points up other wise.

View attachment 584805


Could we be too critical? I know he is already 23 but there has been injuries and setbacks that he has now overcame. He is 6'3, 215 pounds and healthy. Can he take that next step?


2017 draft by scoring leaders

View attachment 584800

Kind of a crappy draft. If he takes the next step he can rocket up this list.

Last year we saw Norris and Thomas take a big step. Could Vilardi still have a chance? He has played half the games as most others on this list, Just don't want to give up hope too fast.

It all comes down to skating, that is why people are down on him. Because people like Wheeler can see that players like Vilardi are not being drafted high and put into lineups around the NHL anymore because almost everyone in the league skates well. Go through every player drafted high in the last 5 years and a common theme is the ability to skate well. It is just very likely that Gabe was the last really poor skater who is going to go high in a draft for a very long time.

There are a couple of errors here too

I guess it depends on how you define breakouts for other players, but Norris played a full NHL season the same year as Vilardi and made the all-rookie team scoring at a 25G, 50Pt pace and followed it up with a 45 goal-pace and an 8/$64 extension. Norris is never going to be mistaken for a Selke winner and he has flaws in his game, but he has skills, in particular his shot that make him a lock to be a 1st or 2nd line player who is lethal on the PP.

Thomas also had a big breakout last year last season resulting in a 8/$65 contract, but he also scored at a 52 point pace as a 20 year old in 19-20.

Gabe did not average .5 ppg in 20-21, his full season pace would be 15G, 20A. Not awful, but the question is, what role does Gabe Vilardi play in the NHL? You list his poor linemates last year, and that is valid (although Gabe was the worst player on the champagne line), but is Gabe good enough to play on a decent teams top 6 with better linemates? Probably not. Does he do enough other things well to play a different role? Probably not. There are guys who end up like this, who can't find their goldilocks zone to be successful NHL'ers. Former Hawk and Coyote Brendan Perlini is a good example of this, he was a high pick with good hands but not good enough to play in a top 6 role in the NHL and didn't have enough of a rounded game to play lower in the lineup. Could always score in the AHL, but not enough in the NHL. The AAAA player is a real thing in the NHL, plenty of guys have had careers go on the same trajectory, even many high picks.

It is certainly possible that everyone is wrong, but it's pretty telling that immediately after giving him a chance as a 2C in 20-21 the Kings brought in a high-priced FA and had him in the AHL most of the season.

Also, the draft was not great especially with big misses at 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. It was one of the worst top 10's in recent memory, but it wasn't poor for teams who went immediately after the Kings, the next 4 forwards taken were Necas, Suzuki, Norris & Thomas. 3 of those guys have just been signed to huge extensions to be cornerstone players for their teams, and even Necas has scored at a .60 ppg level in the NHL. Vilardi falling to the Kings might have been more bad luck if they would have targeted one of those guys otherwise, ofcourse they also could have taken Rasmussen or Lias had the Rangers or Wings taken Vilardi.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Ahh the joys of reading thru off-season posts. Hope with a mix of conjecture and hysteria.

At least there's games this weekend. Fun to see who looks strong against their peers.

Yep, important date:




And a little primer for the rookie tourney with roster and schedule:

 

[FSL KINGS]

I know we are down on Vilardi around here. Wheelers recent article shows others outside the org are starting to question the pick stating his lack of pace should have kept him lower on his list but also conceding the back injury and the lack of opportunity in a role that suits him has hurt.

My question is are we too hard on him. Me missed a year and a half of hockey after the draft getting his back straightened out. He hits the NHL in 2019 scoring on a 57 point pace in limited games and just under a ppg in the AHL.

2020 he is handed the 2C spot and scores at over half a point per game pace in his true rookie season. If we got this out of Byfield, Turcotte or Kupari we would be to busy pleasuring ourselves to type on this forum.

2021 he is converted to RW, Heads down to the AHL and scores a ppg learning a new position after having one hell of an NHL preseason. So up to this point his progression is looking very good. He then is handed limited minutes (13) in the NHL during a playoff chase with the following linemates:

View attachment 584806

looking at him pure stat wise it seems that the outlier was his last quarter in the NHL only putting up 7 points. 4 of which were in the last 2 games. He seems to put points up other wise.

View attachment 584805


Could we be too critical? I know he is already 23 but there has been injuries and setbacks that he has now overcame. He is 6'3, 215 pounds and healthy. Can he take that next step?


2017 draft by scoring leaders

View attachment 584800

Kind of a crappy draft. If he takes the next step he can rocket up this list.

Last year we saw Norris and Thomas take a big step. Could Vilardi still have a chance? He has played half the games as most others on this list, Just don't want to give up hope too fast.

The scoring & playmaking are the frustrating part with Vilardi. Everyone can see his skill in the offensive zone. It's seemingly simple things that keep him from being an NHL regular.

He's a large, right shot center. Should be useful as pretty much the only right shot center other than Kupari. Vilardi isn't good at faceoffs though. Taking right side faceoffs should help Vilardi get ice time. Nope.

Kings also need a good right shot on the PP. Vilardi should be perfect for this, but hasn't been able to stick in the NHL.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Has anyone seen anything on streaming/viewing otherwise?

 

[Herby]

The scoring & playmaking are the frustrating part with Vilardi. Everyone can see his skill in the offensive zone. It's seemingly simple things that keep him from being an NHL regular.

He's a large, right shot center. Should be useful as pretty much the only right shot center other than Kupari. Vilardi isn't good at faceoffs though. Taking right side faceoffs should help Vilardi get ice time. Nope.

Kings also need a good right shot on the PP. Vilardi should be perfect for this, but hasn't been able to stick in the NHL.

The Kings definitely need a right shot on the PP. Especially with the PP run through Kopitar distributing from the right half-wall (with QB hopefully taking over that role in the future) But is Vilardi that kind of player to be scoring a ton of goals connecting on one-timers from the left circle? I am not sure he is that kind of finisher.

We need to find a player with the shot velocity similar to Jarret Stoll but one who could actually hit the net more than 20% of the time. That set-up could have been really wicked if Stoll were more accurate.