Speculation: LA Kings Offseason Thread

[King'sPawn]

None of these things or any quotes by management or posts by fans indicated that Byfield would make almost zero impact through 3 years and be a huge question mark going into year 4. (so a 4 year minimum plan).

Usually when you draft a player #2 overall you are expecting some kind of NHL impact right away, I think the consensus was that QB wasn't going to be one of those guys (and was going to be like Barkov and Hughes) and that is what people meant by stuff like "won't make an immediate impact" Still don't see anything anywhere that suggested anything close to the worst 3 year production from a Top 2 pick in this century.

It's fair to expect people to read between the lines though. Nobody with any credibility would explicitly say "this guy will only start making a noticeable impact by year 3." It's understood that impact won't be immediate, but focus on growth areas to consider setting expectations.

 

[SmytheKing]

None of these things or any quotes by management or posts by fans indicated that Byfield would make almost zero impact through 3 years and be a huge question mark going into year 4. (so a 4 year minimum plan).

Usually when you draft a player #2 overall you are expecting some kind of NHL impact right away, I think the consensus was that QB wasn't going to be one of those guys (and was going to be like Barkov and Hughes) and that is what people meant by stuff like "won't make an immediate impact" Still don't see anything anywhere that suggested anything close to the worst 3 year production from a Top 2 pick in this century.

I mean, if anyone wants to be honest with themselves, just ask if you’d have been happy with the pick of you knew it would mean he was scoring three goals in his d3 year while playing half the season on kopitars wing.

 

[Herby]

It's fair to expect people to read between the lines though. Nobody with any credibility would explicitly say "this guy will only start making a noticeable impact by year 3." It's understood that impact won't be immediate, but focus on growth areas to consider setting expectations.

I just think that everyone at the time knew that it meant he wouldn't be impact in year 1, not that it would be 4 or 5 seasons down the road. I mean some of these people saying now that he was a known long-term project curiously had him as the Kings 1C by now in future lineup projections. You also had many many posts here last year which said "this year (2022-2023) is a big year for QB, if he doesn't take a big step I'll be worried" , now it's "well we all knew it was going to be a long development process"

I think a similar career path to Barkov or Hughes was reasonable, maybe not as offensively impactful as Hughes. For Barkov it would be, not much in year 1, maybe year 2 you become a 35-40 point guy, year 3 you become a 60 point guy and then you really take off. Even for Barkov he hung at the 60 point level for a 4th season and became a point per game guy in year 5. I think something similar to this was reasonable for QB. We are just way behind that.

I feel like right now we are unfortunately playing the Colten Teubert game with Byfield and Turcotte.

Teubert went from Scott Stevens to Mattias Norstrom to Sean O'Donnell to Doug Zmolek to Mark Visheau

Turcotte went from Jonathan Toews to Mike Richards to Sam Bennett to Andrew Copp to Blake Lizotte

QB has gone from Evgeni Malkin to Sasha Barkov to PLD to idk but I have a hard time projecting him as even a PLD anymore. PLD had 60 points at the same age, on a team that made the 2nd round of the playoffs.

 

[Schmooley]

QB has gone from Evgeni Malkin to Sasha Barkov to PLD to idk but I have a hard time projecting him as even a PLD anymore.

You have written off Byfield? I still have hope for him to be a 1c. He is behind schedule but he is not a lost cause.

 

[Herby]

You have written off Byfield? I still have hope for him to be a 1c. He is behind schedule but he is not a lost cause.

If you look at players taken that high who have produced this terribly through 3 seasons its way more likely to lead to a bust than it is to a star. People can cling to Tage Thompson, but if you and 9 friends lottery scratchers and one friend wins and the other 8 lose it doesn't mean your ticket is going to win because one did. That is what I feel like the Thompson talk is.

That being said, I would still list 2nd liner above bust as a likely career outcome. But if the Kings end up with a 2C and a 3/4 liner out of consecutive Top 5 picks there is basically no way this rebuild can be considered a success. Even if Clarke ends up being Adam Fox, who are the centers?

50% 2nd liner
35% bust
15% 1st liner

 

[Schmooley]

If you look at players taken that high who have produced this terribly through 3 seasons its way more likely to lead to a bust than it is to a star. People can cling to Tage Thompson, but if you and 9 friends lottery scratchers and one friend wins and the other 8 lose it doesn't mean your ticket is going to win because one did. That is what I feel like the Thompson talk is.

That being said, I would still list 2nd liner above bust as a likely career outcome. But if the Kings end up with a 2C and a 3/4 liner out of consecutive Top 5 picks there is basically no way this rebuild can be considered a success. Even if Clarke ends up being Adam Fox, who are the centers?

50% 2nd liner
35% bust
15% 1st liner

Yea I could see 2nd liner over bust as well. Would set them back a bit but at that point they will have no choice but to restart a rebuild. All these guys with new contracts will be in their early 30s and there will be no cap to bring in more talent to fix a flawed team.

 

[Nasti]

If you look at players taken that high who have produced this terribly through 3 seasons its way more likely to lead to a bust than it is to a star. People can cling to Tage Thompson, but if you and 9 friends lottery scratchers and one friend wins and the other 8 lose it doesn't mean your ticket is going to win because one did. That is what I feel like the Thompson talk is.

That being said, I would still list 2nd liner above bust as a likely career outcome. But if the Kings end up with a 2C and a 3/4 liner out of consecutive Top 5 picks there is basically no way this rebuild can be considered a success. Even if Clarke ends up being Adam Fox, who are the centers?

50% 2nd liner
35% bust
15% 1st liner

Forget his draft position though. That has no bearing on whether he’ll grow into a first line player or not. What if he was taken 30th instead of 2nd? He’d still be the same player but you’d give him more time to develop the way Kempe and Vilardi did.

 

[Herby]

Forget his draft position though. That has no bearing on whether he’ll grow into a first line player or not. What if he was taken 30th instead of 2nd? He’d still be the same player but you’d give him more time to develop the way Kempe and Vilardi did.

It doesn't matter the draft position, players who struggle this badly through 3 seasons very rarely develop into star players, it doesn't matter where they are taken. Heck, even Vilardi despite missing most of the previous two seasons produced more goals in 10 games in his age 20 season than QB had in 53 games.

And you are saying to disregard draft position, yet the only reason people are clinging to him still being a star is because of draft position. Do you think if QB had been taken #30 like Kempe that people would be projecting him as a star based on how he has played at the NHL and AHL level? No, he'd be seen as a big kid who maybe could end up a 2nd liner. But since he went 2OA in a draft three years ago, people are ignoring the three years of results and still holding out hope he will be the Kings franchise player. Of course draft position changes peoples feelings on a player, had Alex Turcotte been a 2nd round pick he would have been thought of similarly to how JAD was, nobody would have insisted that he still had star potential with how he played his age 18 season at UW and his age 19 season in the AHL, he would have been seen as a potential 3rd line guy with a nice motor and compete level. But due to draft position you had many insisting that there was bigtime offensive upside, despite overwhelming statistical evidence that there wasn't.

And draft position also matters because it's the only reason he had the leash he had this season. Do you think of QB was anything other than a Top 5 pick that he would have spent the majority of the year on the Kings 1st line with Kopitar and Kempe? Obviously the Kings know the importance of this pick and doing everything they can to maximize it and making sure it works. Kaliyev was more impactful offensively but was not given that role, don't think for a minute that draft position didn't have almost everything to do with it.

Are you just of the opinion that there is going to be this huge 180 that is going to hit and QB is going to go from an offensive black hole to a face of the franchise type #1 center? I mean we saw right away with Doughty and Kopitar, do you think it's even close? I just have a hard time seeing anything that makes me think he will be even remotely close to the level of Kopitar.

 

[Statto]

This is so wrong. You draft players to play a role. Then you give them a chance to prove they can handle it. You don't expend an asset to bring in someone else to play that role and then ask an inexperienced rookie to outplay the newly acquired veteran who has already figured out how to stick in the NHL. You give the guy you drafted an opportunity to prove he belongs. Yes, that means there will be mistakes, and you have to live with them. But you don't ask him to be someone he's not - that's like forcing a square peg into a round hole.

Look at Kaliyev, I get it, McLellan was trying to teach him how to score 'dirty' goals to complement his skill set. He accomplished that last season with hard work- in the gym and improving his skating. He earned a shot to play in the role he was drafted for- a top 6 scoring winger. He was denied the opportunity. Then, Durzi make a terrible pass to him that results in a goal against, and he's benched for the duration of the playoffs. What kind of message does that send especially when Iafallo goes on an endless drought and Moore is a 1/2 step slower? Same with Clarke. How is he supposed to get an opportunity given the depth chart? Doughty isn't going anywhere, Roy probably stays because he excels at his role as a defensive stopper and Durzi and Spence are in the way?

If you believe in a player enough to expend a high draft pick for them at least give them the opportunity to fail. The good one's will figure it out.

You’ve touched on what I think is the biggest issue. They have a mindset for an older generation, how the kids need to be treated psychologically has changed big time.

Players need to feel wanted and trusted but this generation far, far more than previous ones. Too many of our prospects start off coming in and just playing and then over time become tentative and start over thinking and second guess themselves. If it were one or two guys you could say it was the individual but it looks like a systemic issue to me.

Byfield definitely over thinks and it’s something he never did as a junior guy, or once he settled into the AHL. Björnfot came in, played and looked great, he was definitely a guy we all thought had a bunch of character (future Captain material) and intangibles but he’s lost assertiveness in his game over time. Kaliyev, who I thought was initially handled well (rounding out his game to some degree made sense) is another that’s lost something in his game. Hell even Durzi has lost his edge. Spence probably played his worst NHL games this year, after a year of ‘improvement’ in the AHL. I’m sure I’m missing someone…. Let’s chuck in Petersen who over time has lost every ounce of self belief.

It’s too many players for me, where the biggest problem is between the ears. All of them seem to have lost that feeling of being trusted, loved, wanted. They all seem to have lost something mentally compared to what they started with. That’s where I think the mishandling is happening because I’m confident that the technical coaching is close to the mark.

Yes we can point to Anderson as a great success but different individuals have different needs and more and more players need a more nurturing approach. They have to be adaptable.

 

[Herby]

You’ve touched on what I think is the biggest issue. They have a mindset for an older generation, how the kids need to be treated psychologically has changed big time.

Players need to feel wanted and trusted but this generation far, far more than previous ones. Too many of our prospects start off coming in and just playing and then over time become tentative and start over thinking and second guess themselves. If it were one or two guys you could say it was the individual but it looks like a systemic issue to me.

Byfield definitely over thinks and it’s something he never did as a junior guy, or once he settled into the AHL. Björnfot came in, played and looked great, he was definitely a guy we all thought had a bunch of character (future Captain material) and intangibles but he’s lost assertiveness in his game over time. Kaliyev, who I thought was initially handled well (rounding out his game to some degree made sense) is another that’s lost something in his game. Hell even Durzi has lost his edge. Spence probably played his worst NHL games this year, after a year of ‘improvement’ in the AHL. I’m sure I’m missing someone…. Let’s chuck in Petersen who over time has lost every ounce of self belief.

It’s too many players for me, where the biggest problem is between the ears. All of them seem to have lost that feeling of being trusted, loved, wanted. They all seem to have lost something mentally compared to what they started with. That’s where I think the mishandling is happening because I’m confident that the technical coaching is close to the mark.

Yes we can point to Anderson as a great success but different individuals have different needs and more and more players need a more nurturing approach. They have to be adaptable.

Good post.

I think you are saying the same thing RJ is saying, that the Kings seem to want to turn everyone into a good little checker above all else. The Kings seem obsessed with this notion of learning a system, and playing within a system. Read the quotes from Blake with all of these moves with young players and that is basically what he is saying in each one.

They didn't want QB in the NHL in his first year, even if it was a golden opportunity to get 60 NHL games under his belt in a low pressure environment. They wanted him in the AHL learning the system. Does anyone besides SN and his alter egos still think that ended up being a good idea? QB has never once looked like a future star over a sustained period of time for the Kings. And I think a lot of that has to do with decisions made by management. They hammered that system into him and then broke him into a situation where he had to play a simple low-risk game because the team was competing. You can just see that he looks like a kid terrified to make a mistake.

Turcotte same thing, golden opportunity to tell him, "go back to school and work on your skills, get better, don't be afraid to make mistakes" that is what every other team would have said, but not the Kings. It was to the AHL and "learning the system" , there was never a level of dominance at a very important level for a player like that, never a chance to be a difference maker, to gain offensive confidence. It was straight to the AHL and 3 goals in his first 30 games as a pro, how is one supposed to grow offensively at all? Even if the ceiling was low, you maybe had a guy with 20 goal upside and turned him into one with 10 goal upside. But they got what they wanted, all these guys to become system players.

But what is so odd is, you mention an archaic type of thinking for a modern generation, which I agree with. But both Luc and Blake never played any games in the minors in their career. Yet as managers they are saying "Only McDavid types don't need time in the minors"

 

[Statto]

Some don't understand there's a difference between earning ice time and having the coach's trust.

Coaches are human and go with what's comfortable. This isn't demonizing McLellan. But just because a player has played well enough to earn more ice time doesn't mean they have the coach's trust to get that ice time.

Some need to stop pretending they know what they're talking about when they say a player hasn't "earned" his ice time.

Agreed. As per my post that trust thing is multithreaded and it’s important that players are made to feel trusted (even if they are not) because it otherwise becomes a chicken vs egg scenario.

 

[Statto]

Nothing you said was wrong.

Hughes was by no means considered a generational player and he was lost in the NHL in year 1 and for a lot of year 2. Saying Hughes was generational is moving the goal-posts more than saying QB was a 4-5 year project.

Hughes isn’t generational. Considering how most people define it these days we have about 10 generational players in the league which means none of them are. Only McDavid has any sort of generational claim which can be picked apart… so maybe these play-offs he finally claims it and lives up to his talent. The rest of these guys are ‘franchise guys’. A generational guy was always defines as a once in a generation outlier like Gretzky and Lemieux, a generation is approximately 20 years. The fact they overlapped is a demonstration of the randomness of probability. Franchise players just get called generational these days which is fine is the generational guys get a new label.

Not directed at you in particular @Herby just that yours was the latest post I saw on the subject. I’m just a pedantic arse.

 

[Herby]

Hughes isn’t generational. Considering how most people define it these days we have about 10 generational players in the league which means none of them are. Only McDavid has any sort of generational claim which can be picked apart… so maybe these play-offs he finally claims it and lives up to his talent. The rest of these guys are ‘franchise guys’. A generational guy was always defines as a once in a generation outlier like Gretzky and Lemieux, a generation is approximately 20 years. The fact they overlapped is a demonstration of the randomness of probability. Franchise players just get called generational these days which is fine is the generational guys get a new label.

Not directed at you in particular @Herby just that yours was the latest post I saw on the subject. I’m just a pedantic arse.

I prefer to use once in a decade.

I think in 2005 we had Crosby and in 2015 we had McDavid and in 2023 we may have another one in Bedard.

Generational is one that should be reserved for only the elite of the elite of the elite. I think Orr was generational, and then Gretzky and Lemieux relatively close to each other were generational. But I don't think there was a generational player between Lemieux in 1984 and McDavid in 2015. Sometimes you can have two in a decade, and it's evened out by maybe having none for three decades.

But yeah, I was just saying there was no way anybody considered Jack Hughes to be generational. He was a better than average #1 OA pick, nothing more than that (not that being that is a bad thing). And due to making the jump from the NTDP to the NHL he was one of the least ready players to ever play in the league. Him being lost in the NHL, but given ample opportunity to shine did not damage him, and I don't think it would have damaged QB either, I think he'd actually be in a better spot had he been given that opportunity.

 

[Piston]

Herby and Statto make excellent points. The worst drafting mistake this century was Hextall taking Patrick with Makar (and Heiskanen) still on the board. This literally led to the destruction of the Flyers and cost him his job. Blake's mistakes maybe weren't as historically bad, but the failure to inject serious talent into the lineup via the draft is going to kill this team in the long run. Just look at who are top players are: Kopitar (35 and drafted by Taylor), Kempe (soon to be 27 drafted by DL), Doughty (34 drafted by DL), Danault (30, FA), Arvidsson (30, trade), Roy (28, DL), Gavrikov (trade, exit due to CA taxes), Fiala (trade). The only true impact player RB has drafted is Mikey Anderson. I think this says it all.

Now look at the top draft picks- Vilardi (should make it big but upside limited by skating), JAD (is he worth keeping around?) Kupari (physical talent is there, mental??), Thomas (prospect to suspect), Turcotte (bust), Bjornfot (regression), Kaliyev (worked hard but still not there), Byfield (if he finally puts on weight, he may reach his potential), Grans (who?), Faber (traded), Clarke (can't believe they are talking AHL), Pinelli (too early to tell) and Hughes (bust likely).

The Kings have had two respectable seasons riding a veteran core and some clever stop gaps to fill holes. This will not continue indefinitely due to the salary cap and Father Time taking his toll. Without youngsters coming into the lineup and making significant contributions, regression is INEVITABLE. At what point does one stop making excuses?

If RB gives McLellan a contract extension, you know that the team is doubling down on what hasn't worked. My guess/hope is that Beckerman will block this. If not, we are screwed.

 

[johnjm22]

Now look at the top draft picks- Vilardi (should make it big but upside limited by skating)

I disagree with this. I think he has huge upside.

When he was on top of his game this year, he was damn near as good as any winger in the league. It's just a question of consistency.

Draisaitl junior, but actually plays defense.

We're all talking about QB and Clarke, but Gabe might be the biggest X factor next year. If he builds on what he did this year, he has star potential.

 

[BigKing]

Herby and Statto make excellent points. The worst drafting mistake this century was Hextall taking Patrick with Makar (and Heiskanen) still on the board. This literally led to the destruction of the Flyers and cost him his job. Blake's mistakes maybe weren't as historically bad, but the failure to inject serious talent into the lineup via the draft is going to kill this team in the long run. Just look at who are top players are: Kopitar (35 and drafted by Taylor), Kempe (soon to be 27 drafted by DL), Doughty (34 drafted by DL), Danault (30, FA), Arvidsson (30, trade), Roy (28, DL), Gavrikov (trade, exit due to CA taxes), Fiala (trade). The only true impact player RB has drafted is Mikey Anderson. I think this says it all.

Now look at the top draft picks- Vilardi (should make it big but upside limited by skating), JAD (is he worth keeping around?) Kupari (physical talent is there, mental??), Thomas (prospect to suspect), Turcotte (bust), Bjornfot (regression), Kaliyev (worked hard but still not there), Byfield (if he finally puts on weight, he may reach his potential), Grans (who?), Faber (traded), Clarke (can't believe they are talking AHL), Pinelli (too early to tell) and Hughes (bust likely).

The Kings have had two respectable seasons riding a veteran core and some clever stop gaps to fill holes. This will not continue indefinitely due to the salary cap and Father Time taking his toll. Without youngsters coming into the lineup and making significant contributions, regression is INEVITABLE. At what point does one stop making excuses?

If RB gives McLellan a contract extension, you know that the team is doubling down on what hasn't worked. My guess/hope is that Beckerman will block this. If not, we are screwed.

This whole thing doesn't work if you don't get a superstar out of the tank job. Clarke looks like the only hope of that at this point. Byfield had to be a legit force by this season to have this team be a real contender. He wasn't, he's not and here they are.

DL could afford to blow the Hickey pick since he inherited 11/23/32 and his 2OA pick is a future HOF'er. DL then followed up with Schenn and if we are all being honest with ourselves, we should hope Byfield can at least have as good of a career as Brayden.

If Clarke is a revelation and Byfield can be equal to Schenn, you have something but it isn't close to Doughty being added to Kopitar.

I've said since before the selection that Blake's entire rebuild hinges on the result of the 2OA selection. The shine was already off of Turcotte a bit by then and the importance of having a legit stud on an ELC can't be understated. The Kings get one more year of the 2OA on his ELC and he scored, what, three goals last year? Brutal.

The 2003 draft was the death blow to Dave Taylor's job even though he got Brown out of it. Blake's first round drafting in 2018 - '20 might be his 2003 blunder that eventually leads to his downfall. He's papering over it with veteran acquisitions and, in what I find highly amusing due to the DL bashing of "he can't draft and inherited DT's guys", DL and DT draft picks at 1C/1W/1D and even G1 for part of the season.

I disagree with this. I think he has huge upside.

When he was on top of his game this year, he was damn near as good as any winger in the league. It's just a question of consistency.

Draisaitl junior, but actually plays defense.

We're all talking about QB and Clarke, but Gabe might be the biggest X factor next year. If he builds on what he did this year, he has star potential.

I love Vilardi but that would be the most junior of juniors. Not even a poor man's Drasaitl but, like, a poor man that also owes a lot of debts.

Vilardi is awesome. Drai is on another planet.

 

[johnjm22]

I love Vilardi but that would be the most junior of juniors. Not even a poor man's Drasaitl but, like, a poor man that also owes a lot of debts.

Vilardi is awesome. Drai is on another planet.

People are underestimating how good he was this year at times.

He showed the capability to be an elite player.

Doesn't mean he will be, but I was responding to a quote about his potential.

 

[ZJames]

Generational is one that should be reserved for only the elite of the elite of the elite. I think Orr was generational, and then Gretzky and Lemieux relatively close to each other were generational. But I don't think there was a generational player between Lemieux in 1984 and McDavid in 2015. Sometimes you can have two in a decade, and it's evened out by maybe having none for three decades.

Would you consider Lidstrom generational? Not trying to argue anything, just curious.

I personally would consider Ovie to be a generational talent as well.

 

[BigKing]

People are underestimating how good he was this year at times.

He showed the capability to be an elite player.

Doesn't mean he will be, but I was responding to a quote about his potential.

Sure, but the comp is too rich for my blood.

I worry that he can't really eat many more minutes so that would cap his potential. Guy is super skilled though and should maybe be out there for the full two minutes on the power play.

 

[Telos]

There is definitely an issue with the development staff and system, but it is also bigger than that as that is the task that Blake envisioned for the entire organization. Early on when Blake couldn't re-ignite the remains of the contender the Kings once were he decided that he wanted to be a fast, smallish/skilled, team that would infuse prospects on ELC's with our aging core with some sprinkled-in acquisitions to do a quick rebuild/retool and be back in it.

They've definitely treated the youngsters differently than other organizations around the league. They are assigned a system identity that they have to adhere to and perfect to get in the lineup, forced to demonstrate that excessively in the AHL, and then assigned roles typically on the fourth line with very limited ice time and told to play a complete game to that system regardless of their individual talents or strengths. It feels like a poorly scripted version of Dean's cultural identity that comes off as a prisoner routine. This is clearly impacting the prospect's psyches as many of them have entered into this weird phase of indecisiveness and just an overall lack of confidence to do anything.

I am sure they are aware of it too as they specifically added Manon Rheaume to work with our prospects in terms of the mental aspects of the game, for better or worse. But I also feel like it is more than that and has affected the entire team. The most painful aspect of the entire playoffs in my opinion is we lost because of our system which falls on coaching.

There was nothing more painful than watching our players stand there like idiots while Edmonton skated around them and toyed with them like they were AI characters from a video game. That penalty kill was one of the worst things I think I have ever seen in the NHL. Sure, Edmonton has a ridiculous and historically lauded powerplay, but even still there was absolutely no answer to it and they never changed a thing. They just stood there and allowed any shot from outside their diamond with absolutely no pressure. That was the most damning thing I have seen yet against TMac and the current coaching staff.

But overall, our system takes players away from their gifts and talents but offers nothing in return as they are not benefitting individually by proving themselves and moving up the logjammed lineup and are not earning contracts based on the team's success. Which would be fine if it was a proven model of a winner, but it isn't as it has shown that it can barely get to the playoffs but can't do much else.

Even Durzi, which I have advocated trading since our injured players returned after he touched NHL ice, looks lost when trying to create offense. He has always looked lost when trying to defend because he is a horrible defender, but his only schtick was that he could create offense, but towards the end of the season and the playoffs you could tell he was playing scared. He was trying so hard not to make a mistake and adhere to the system that he was ineffective in doing anything else. Durzi is just one of many examples where players are made to forget what made them successful in the first place as they get beaten and forced to play the team system.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I have a simple offseason suggestion — copy the composition of this team:

 

[johnjm22]

Sure, but the comp is too rich for my blood.

I worry that he can't really eat many more minutes so that would cap his potential. Guy is super skilled though and should maybe be out there for the full two minutes on the power play.

Sometimes players are of a similar ilk even if one is in a different class than the other.

I think both players are similar "types."

I do have similar concerns about Gabe's ability to play more minutes though.

5-on-5 P/60 this year:

Vilardi: 2.28
Draisaitl: 2.41

So it's not like there's a chasm of difference there.

Draisaitl, like most elite players, FEASTS on the PP. Gabe doesn't (at least not yet).

IMO Vilardi's ultimate upside is more than a point-per-game player. So I don't think "Drai Jr." when talking about his ultimate upside is too outlandish.

 

[King'sPawn]

I just think that everyone at the time knew that it meant he wouldn't be impact in year 1, not that it would be 4 or 5 seasons down the road. I mean some of these people saying now that he was a known long-term project curiously had him as the Kings 1C by now in future lineup projections. You also had many many posts here last year which said "this year (2022-2023) is a big year for QB, if he doesn't take a big step I'll be worried" , now it's "well we all knew it was going to be a long development process"

I think a similar career path to Barkov or Hughes was reasonable, maybe not as offensively impactful as Hughes. For Barkov it would be, not much in year 1, maybe year 2 you become a 35-40 point guy, year 3 you become a 60 point guy and then you really take off. Even for Barkov he hung at the 60 point level for a 4th season and became a point per game guy in year 5. I think something similar to this was reasonable for QB. We are just way behind that.

I feel like right now we are unfortunately playing the Colten Teubert game with Byfield and Turcotte.

Teubert went from Scott Stevens to Mattias Norstrom to Sean O'Donnell to Doug Zmolek to Mark Visheau

Turcotte went from Jonathan Toews to Mike Richards to Sam Bennett to Andrew Copp to Blake Lizotte

QB has gone from Evgeni Malkin to Sasha Barkov to PLD to idk but I have a hard time projecting him as even a PLD anymore. PLD had 60 points at the same age, on a team that made the 2nd round of the playoffs.

I think you're conflating a few arguments, or putting all people into the same category, which is a major disservice to the discussion (please know I'm not accusing you of arguing in bad faith - just that it's hard to keep track of every individual's personal arguments so I think you're grouping them all up.

I am disappointed in the production of the prospects. I said at the start of the year that Vilardi hitting 40+ points and one other prospect (Byfield, Kaliyev, etc) hitting 30+ points is the bare minimum for me to be happy with the progress of the prospects. Vilardi passed 40, but that's it (and no, I don't consider "pace" acceptable, given how inconsistent prospects are and their pace isn't expected to be realized).

But it has been pointed out that Byfield will take time. People have different interpretations of that. While I'm disappointed in the production, it's mitigated to a degree by the growth in his game. So, while he hasn't hit the mark yet, you can at least argue there have been growth points in ways that hasn't translated into points yet.

My expectations for Byfield aren't still in the 30+ point category, even though he didn't meet it. My expectations from him after next season is 45 points minimum though (15+ goals, 30+ assists), which is that of an average top-6 forward.

If he doesn't hit that, then we continue to evaluate why. Just like what we're doing this season.

A project has goals and deadlines, but just because the project is currently behind schedule doesn't mean it's a wash, failure, or disappointment. Just that there's catching up to do.

I say this for any prospect - the team has to know what they have by the time the player is waiver eligible (by their D+5 season). Since that's what big organizational decisions need to be made, regarding waiving a player or making room for another youngster, I think it's fair to give Byfield till the end of next season.

 

[ZJames]

I think the jury is still out on what kind of player Gabe can grow into. The guy has a great shot, great hockey sense, and can stick handle in a phone booth. He and Fiala seem to have good chemistry as well. I'm going to channel my inner Captain Obvious by saying this, but the major concern is the health and durability. Hopefully another offseason of training and conditioning will help him in that category, and if so, I don't think we've seen the best of GV yet. I feel like he has the potential to be a 70-80 point guy.

 

[Herby]

Would you consider Lidstrom generational? Not trying to argue anything, just curious.

I personally would consider Ovie to be a generational talent as well.

Lidstrom-Hasek-Jagr were the 3 best of the era between Lemieux and Crosby/Ovy but I just don’t know if any of those 5 should be considered in the same group as Gretzky, Orr, Lemieux and McDavid as truly “generational” players.

Lidstrom was incredible though, Gretzky was the only person I ever saw with better game sense. Lidstrom just always made the right play, in every circumstance.

They've definitely treated the youngsters differently than other organizations around the league. They are assigned a system identity that they have to adhere to and perfect to get in the lineup, forced to demonstrate that excessively in the AHL

Byfield was handled differently than other top picks “because of Covid”

1. The AHL option was available to Barkov and Hughes. They weren’t assigned there.

2. Plenty of players not ready to play in the league were put there because it’s a better development path for teenagers than the OHL.

On Turcotte it will also be blamed on Covid amongst other things.

1 . When Turcotte signed Covid was not a major thing yet.

2. If Covid changed everything, why did everyone else with similar picks opt for the NCAA over the AHL?

3. Others will blame Wisconsin. Yet how have other teams kept players at UW for multiple years and ended up with much better results from lower picks (Caufield, Miller, Frederic)?

It used to be that they would outright deny that the Kings handled youth way different from most teams, now with the evidence being so overwhelming they have switched up their strategy to come up with what they think are valid excuses as to why the Kings have been different. Even though all of their excuses also effect other teams, who have continued to stay the course and have much better development results the last 6 years than the Kings.