Maturation and evolution causing movement in Kings Spring Top 20 Prospects

[BallPointHammer]

To much to quote since my last post, so I'll just sum up my opinion of what's been said like this.

'Hitting' with a pick is a variable. Yes, it's great to get a guy that can even play in the NHL and yes, on average a 1st rounder pans out to be a 3rd liner/bottom pairing guy on the average, obviously depending on where you are selecting. As well on average, each subsequent round will see that average decrease.

That said, you absolutely have to rise above that on occasion. A team filled with 3rd liners/bottom pairing defensemen isn't going to win any cups. In the salary cap world, you have to depend on homegrown (IE drafted and developed) talent more than ever, simply because that talent typically is cheaper in terms of salary than free agency, or assets in term of trades.

if you think of your core as your top six forwards, top four defensemen and top netminder, that's 11 players. For the Kings, our top six forwards in 2015-2016 based on ice time per game as per NHL.com are: Kopitar, Lucic, Toffoli, Carter, Brown and Gaborik. Our top four defensemen are: Doughty, Muzzin, Martinez and McNabb. Our goaltender is of course Quick.

So if you view that as our core, that means six of those 11 positions are supplied via the draft (Kopitar, Toffoli, Brown, Doughty, Martinez and Quick). All six were drafted between 2003 and 2010, or eight drafts.

Now if you look at our drafting over the past eight drafts, do we have six core guys? I doubt it. We have Toffoli, Pearson should be able to get there, Doughty is counted in there since he was eight drafts ago so technically he makes that cut by a year. Beyond that we have the list of prospects posted here by JL. Kempe has the upside to make that cut and I think so does Amadio, but neither is a guarantee. Really neither is Pearson yet, we should wait for a 20 goal and/or 40 point season before calling him a core guy.

There's just not enough in the pipeline to replace even the home developed portion of the core, nevermind the fact we don't have the assets to keep trading for the likes of Carter, Lucic, Gaborik, etc.

We need to draft better in terms of high end skill and I won't buy any line about us needing better picks to do so. Half of the core we drafted came outside of the first round (Toffoli, A-Mart, and Quick).

Also, while I like Brodzinski, no way do I see him at Toffoli upside. Compare where each was at the same age. At 22 (and six months) Brodzinski is on pace for a 27 point AHL season. Toffoli was fresh off a 29 point NHL rookie season and a 14 point playoff run and getting ready for a 20 goal NHL season. I know development isn't linear but Brodzinski has a huge leap to make to even reach the NHL, nevermind Toffoli.

All of this. Lombardi is going to ruin his own plan by tossing away draft choices and handing out some of these overly long contracts that extend way past the player's prime.

Brown. Gaborik. Richards. Greene to some extent. Sekera. Possibly Lucic. If the regular season is seen as preparation for the playoffs, assuming you make it, the Kings need to be grooming (in the NHL) the very guys that are being drafted and developed. Sometimes you have to let guys walk even if they may have another good year or two left.

Who was it who said "don't fall in love with guys?"

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

All of this. Lombardi is going to ruin his own plan by tossing away draft choices and handing out some of these overly long contracts that extend way past the player's prime.

Brown. Gaborik. Richards. Greene to some extent. Sekera. Possibly Lucic. If the regular season is seen as preparation for the playoffs, assuming you make it, the Kings need to be grooming (in the NHL) the very guys that are being drafted and developed. Sometimes you have to let guys walk even if they may have another good year or two left.

Who was it who said "don't fall in love with guys?"

Mitchell? Williams? Scuderi?

I also think the amount of assets 'lost' is being overstated because most of them turned into long-term solutions, and except for this upcoming draft, we've done a great job of retaining picks. And in addition, a lot of our assets have moved to the roster.

To much to quote since my last post, so I'll just sum up my opinion of what's been said like this.

'Hitting' with a pick is a variable. Yes, it's great to get a guy that can even play in the NHL and yes, on average a 1st rounder pans out to be a 3rd liner/bottom pairing guy on the average, obviously depending on where you are selecting. As well on average, each subsequent round will see that average decrease.

That said, you absolutely have to rise above that on occasion. A team filled with 3rd liners/bottom pairing defensemen isn't going to win any cups. In the salary cap world, you have to depend on homegrown (IE drafted and developed) talent more than ever, simply because that talent typically is cheaper in terms of salary than free agency, or assets in term of trades.

if you think of your core as your top six forwards, top four defensemen and top netminder, that's 11 players. For the Kings, our top six forwards in 2015-2016 based on ice time per game as per NHL.com are: Kopitar, Lucic, Toffoli, Carter, Brown and Gaborik. Our top four defensemen are: Doughty, Muzzin, Martinez and McNabb. Our goaltender is of course Quick.

So if you view that as our core, that means six of those 11 positions are supplied via the draft (Kopitar, Toffoli, Brown, Doughty, Martinez and Quick). All six were drafted between 2003 and 2010, or eight drafts.

Now if you look at our drafting over the past eight drafts, do we have six core guys? I doubt it. We have Toffoli, Pearson should be able to get there, Doughty is counted in there since he was eight drafts ago so technically he makes that cut by a year. Beyond that we have the list of prospects posted here by JL. Kempe has the upside to make that cut and I think so does Amadio, but neither is a guarantee. Really neither is Pearson yet, we should wait for a 20 goal and/or 40 point season before calling him a core guy.

There's just not enough in the pipeline to replace even the home developed portion of the core, nevermind the fact we don't have the assets to keep trading for the likes of Carter, Lucic, Gaborik, etc.

We need to draft better in terms of high end skill and I won't buy any line about us needing better picks to do so. Half of the core we drafted came outside of the first round (Toffoli, A-Mart, and Quick).

Also, while I like Brodzinski, no way do I see him at Toffoli upside. Compare where each was at the same age. At 22 (and six months) Brodzinski is on pace for a 27 point AHL season. Toffoli was fresh off a 29 point NHL rookie season and a 14 point playoff run and getting ready for a 20 goal NHL season. I know development isn't linear but Brodzinski has a huge leap to make to even reach the NHL, nevermind Toffoli.

Like I said before, I don't disagree entirely with your take, and it looks like you've come back from your initial stance about first rounders and such, so I almost agree entirely instead. We HAVE to find some more impact talent in later rounds.

And my Brodzinski point was just in reference to Nyquist. If we give some of our guys with potential 8 years to crack the NHL, I guarantee one of them is at least a Nyquist. That's all. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic. But our 'problem' is that some of them are contributing quickly instead.

 

[Jason Lewis]

You guys are great. I love how there is always discussion on these pieces

 

[kingsfan]

Mitchell? Williams? Scuderi?

I also think the amount of assets 'lost' is being overstated because most of them turned into long-term solutions, and except for this upcoming draft, we've done a great job of retaining picks. And in addition, a lot of our assets have moved to the roster.



Like I said before, I don't disagree entirely with your take, and it looks like you've come back from your initial stance about first rounders and such, so I almost agree entirely instead. We HAVE to find some more impact talent in later rounds.

And my Brodzinski point was just in reference to Nyquist. If we give some of our guys with potential 8 years to crack the NHL, I guarantee one of them is at least a Nyquist. That's all. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic. But our 'problem' is that some of them are contributing quickly instead.

If you count the 2016 draft, in our past six drafts we've had two first round picks. Not sure I'd call that great retention.

Not sure how I've changed my stance on first rounders either.

As for Nyquist, he was in the NHL less than four years after being drafted and was full time by the end of 2012-2013, or four and a half years later. If that's the time frame you are talking about then I'm fine with it. That's definitely not eight years though. In fact it won't be eight years since Nyquist was drafted until this summer and he already has 267 games under his belt, regular season and playoffs combined.

 

[bob77]

If you count the 2016 draft, in our past six drafts we've had two first round picks. Not sure I'd call that great retention.

Not sure how I've changed my stance on first rounders either.

As for Nyquist, he was in the NHL less than four years after being drafted and was full time by the end of 2012-2013, or four and a half years later. If that's the time frame you are talking about then I'm fine with it. That's definitely not eight years though. In fact it won't be eight years since Nyquist was drafted until this summer and he already has 267 games under his belt, regular season and playoffs combined.

2010 Forbort
?? Kempe

But if you are counting this summer coming up, that's actually two in seven.

edit! as you can see below, I forgot about Pearson. Was he 2011?

 

[bob77]

Just because you are drafted two years later than most in your draft class doesn't mean you will breaking into the NHL two years later as well. Often the older drafted prospects succeed or flop quicker after being drafted as they are further along physically and it's a quicker process to identify if their talents will translate over to the pros and later the NHL.

case in point is Tanner Pearson. No one drafted him his first two years of draft eligibility. Then, in his last year, he goes in the first round. Amazing! I would like the historian of this chat board to tell me if this has ever happened before.

 

[BallPointHammer]

Mitchell? Williams? Scuderi?

I also think the amount of assets 'lost' is being overstated because most of them turned into long-term solutions, and except for this upcoming draft, we've done a great job of retaining picks. And in addition, a lot of our assets have moved to the roster.



Like I said before, I don't disagree entirely with your take, and it looks like you've come back from your initial stance about first rounders and such, so I almost agree entirely instead. We HAVE to find some more impact talent in later rounds.

And my Brodzinski point was just in reference to Nyquist. If we give some of our guys with potential 8 years to crack the NHL, I guarantee one of them is at least a Nyquist. That's all. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic. But our 'problem' is that some of them are contributing quickly instead.

I agree, those guys were great contributors, but they didn't have albatross contracts and left the Kings as UFAs. Hasn't Lombardi said in the past something along the lines of "everyone can't retire a King." If he can shed Brown and/or Gaborik and keep Lucic at not 7 or 8 years than OK. Good recovery work.

A little background. I grew up following the Kings in the '70s. I am still traumatized by the reckless trading away of draft choices by George Maguire. Whenever the Kings trade a 1st round pick there is a little tremor in my chest. Really. Even when Lombardi does it. So, there you go.

 

[kingsfan]

2010 Forbort
?? Kempe

But if you are counting this summer coming up, that's actually two in seven.

I'm counting 2011 to 2016. So two in six, Pearson and Kempe.

case in point is Tanner Pearson. No one drafted him his first two years of draft eligibility. Then, in his last year, he goes in the first round. Amazing! I would like the historian of this chat board to tell me if this has ever happened before.

It hasn't. TSN said as much at the 2012 draft.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

If you count the 2016 draft, in our past six drafts we've had two first round picks. Not sure I'd call that great retention.

Not sure how I've changed my stance on first rounders either.

As for Nyquist, he was in the NHL less than four years after being drafted and was full time by the end of 2012-2013, or four and a half years later. If that's the time frame you are talking about then I'm fine with it. That's definitely not eight years though. In fact it won't be eight years since Nyquist was drafted until this summer and he already has 267 games under his belt, regular season and playoffs combined.

Great, now how about the rest of the picks? That's what I'm talking about. I'm well aware of the missing first rounders, but my point is that it's not like we pissed them away--they became things like Penner, Richards, etc. While our other picks have become things like Toffoli. It's about asset/roster management as a whole and acquiring players via whatever method, not just about only-get-players-through-the-draft.

I was saying your stance on first rounders changed NOT in that you flip flopped but that you were just pointing out we need impact players period, it doesn't matter what round they come from.

And re Nyquist I was just pointing out that you're evaluating a guy who was drafted 8 years ago. We're kind of beating around the bush with him...you were saying we draft King etc. and Detroit ends up with Nyquist and I'm just saying it's likely there's someone on our farm or from an upcoming draft that becomes a 40-50 point player.

I trust the Kings development team on things like this. how about Mersch? He's a 4th rounder. Zykov 2nd, etc. We don't know what they are yet so to suggest they've failed in that we didn't get any impact players late is a little early.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

I agree, those guys were great contributors, but they didn't have albatross contracts and left the Kings as UFAs. Hasn't Lombardi said in the past something along the lines of "everyone can't retire a King." If he can shed Brown and/or Gaborik and keep Lucic at not 7 or 8 years than OK. Good recovery work.

A little background. I grew up following the Kings in the '70s. I am still traumatized by the reckless trading away of draft choices by George Maguire. Whenever the Kings trade a 1st round pick there is a little tremor in my chest. Really. Even when Lombardi does it. So, there you go.

Right, but you literally said "Sometimes you have to let guys walk even if they may have another good year or two left. " I was just pointing out we've done that.

I totally understand on the history of draft trauma though

 

[kingsfan]

Great, now how about the rest of the picks? That's what I'm talking about. I'm well aware of the missing first rounders, but my point is that it's not like we pissed them away--they became things like Penner, Richards, etc. While our other picks have become things like Toffoli. It's about asset/roster management as a whole and acquiring players via whatever method, not just about only-get-players-through-the-draft.

I was saying your stance on first rounders changed NOT in that you flip flopped but that you were just pointing out we need impact players period, it doesn't matter what round they come from.

And re Nyquist I was just pointing out that you're evaluating a guy who was drafted 8 years ago. We're kind of beating around the bush with him...you were saying we draft King etc. and Detroit ends up with Nyquist and I'm just saying it's likely there's someone on our farm or from an upcoming draft that becomes a 40-50 point player.

I trust the Kings development team on things like this. how about Mersch? He's a 4th rounder. Zykov 2nd, etc. We don't know what they are yet so to suggest they've failed in that we didn't get any impact players late is a little early.

Correct, we have maintained later round picks. That's not exactly an achievement though. Even teams that do piss away 1sts draft on average five or six guys per draft. Doing what every other team does isn't cause for praise for assess management.

As well, some of those picks we make get traded anyway, such as Miller, Fasching and McKoewn.

Mersch and Zykov have a combined one NHL goal, what about them? Heck, I have serious doubts Zykov amounts to anything more than a depth piece. I'm not saying they've 'failed' but where is the proof in the past eight drafts that we are getting core players in the draft? Toffoli? Great, every team likely has found a core player in the past eight drafts, one guy isn't going to keep the team afloat. As I said, we drafted six core players in eight years, three of which we grabbed outside the first round. I have serious doubts we'll be duplicating either of those stats when we reflect on our most recent eight drafts, or even coming close.

You want to point at the current crop and say 'we may have a Nyquist/Toffoli/etc. here', I'm saying look back to past years and we said the same thing about the likes of Kozun and Weal and Vey and Loktionov and Holloway. We don't have the talent in the system to maintain this team and the way we are drafting in recent drafts isn't helping. There's to much of a focus on falling picks (Ebert and Middleton for example) or guys with size and grit. Yes, those players will do well in our system but we aren't going to win with Clifford, King and Andreoff. We win with Kopitar, Carter and Gaborik. I get that getting guys like that are hard where we pick, but we don't even have anyone -outside of maybe Kempe- that even holds a candle to these guys.

We keep going the way we are and we'll be getting those high draft picks again sooner rather than later. I expect a fire sale and rebuild at some point in 2019 to be honest.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Correct, we have maintained later round picks. That's not exactly an achievement though. Even teams that do piss away 1sts draft on average five or six guys per draft. Doing what every other team does isn't cause for praise for assess management.

As well, some of those picks we make get traded anyway, such as Miller, Fasching and McKoewn.

Mersch and Zykov have a combined one NHL goal, what about them? Heck, I have serious doubts Zykov amounts to anything more than a depth piece. I'm not saying they've 'failed' but where is the proof in the past eight drafts that we are getting core players in the draft? Toffoli? Great, every team likely has found a core player in the past eight drafts, one guy isn't going to keep the team afloat. As I said, we drafted six core players in eight years, three of which we grabbed outside the first round. I have serious doubts we'll be duplicating either of those stats when we reflect on our most recent eight drafts, or even coming close.

You want to point at the current crop and say 'we may have a Nyquist/Toffoli/etc. here', I'm saying look back to past years and we said the same thing about the likes of Kozun and Weal and Vey and Loktionov and Holloway. We don't have the talent in the system to maintain this team and the way we are drafting in recent drafts isn't helping. There's to much of a focus on falling picks (Ebert and Middleton for example) or guys with size and grit. Yes, those players will do well in our system but we aren't going to win with Clifford, King and Andreoff. We win with Kopitar, Carter and Gaborik. I get that getting guys like that are hard where we pick, but we don't even have anyone -outside of maybe Kempe- that even holds a candle to these guys.

We keep going the way we are and we'll be getting those high draft picks again sooner rather than later. I expect a fire sale and rebuild at some point in 2019 to be honest.

Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, then. I don't see it as 'doing what every other team does' since have have long-term players and cups to show for it. Penner. Carter. Regehr. Richards. Gaborik. Lucic. If you want to call that pissing away assets, I'll respectfully disagree, especially given that the great majority of the players that went the other way haven't even cut it in the NHL yet if at all.

I'm just saying I trust that DL and Co have a plan for eventually replenishing the top-six spots but that it's not mega-urgent at this exact moment. I also don't understand how you can complain about taking a shot at Ebert at literally the last pick overall when that's exactly the 'high-end talent' guy you may as well swing for at that point, it's directly contradictory to what you're saying about not picking elite/impact talents...and though we don't have sexy blue-chippers due to where we've been picking, I think there is some real talent in our system with some potential upside. No, there are no sure things, I guess I'm choosing to be optimistic about it, like I said before. Theyre not all going to pan out. Very few will. But I see guys smoking every league they're in that ALSO have the size, speed, and smarts to play Kings hockey, I've seen our draft team work wonders, and I've seen our development staff turn flaws into gold (Toffoli's skating issues, anyone?).

Though I agree that we'll have a fire sale at some point, would that be the worst thing? I'd rather see us tank out hard and sell our talent for high picks than get stuck in another black hole for a decade...

 

[kingsfan]

I'm not taking a shot at Ebert. Honestly I liked that pick. My point is typically when a guy that was expected to be drafted high falls, those picks don't pan out. There's nothing wrong with doing it on occasion but doing it often isn't a good formula.

We are to hung up on taking size and two-way game types and saving skill for the later rounds for the most part. We need to go for Toffoli types more often. I love guys like Pearson, but you don't go anywhere with a line up full of foot soldiers. You need elite skill too and there isn't much coming.

And smoke every level? A tad over the top.

Btw, no, I don't want a firesale. I want Detroit level endurance of performance. That should be the goal.

 

[King'sPawn]

I'm not taking a shot at Ebert. Honestly I liked that pick. My point is typically when a guy that was expected to be drafted high falls, those picks don't pan out. There's nothing wrong with doing it on occasion but doing it often isn't a good formula.

We are to hung up on taking size and two-way game types and saving skill for the later rounds for the most part. We need to go for Toffoli types more often. I love guys like Pearson, but you don't go anywhere with a line up full of foot soldiers. You need elite skill too and there isn't much coming.

And smoke every level? A tad over the top.

Btw, no, I don't want a firesale. I want Detroit level endurance of performance. That should be the goal.

I disagree quite a bit here. I don't think it's a bad formula to make a low risk, high reward type of pick, which is what drafting skill players in the 7th round is.

I also disagree that the Kings are hung up on taking size and too way game. On the size aspect, the Kings have drafted plenty of smaller players. They just don't develop their game well enough to be effective in the Kings system. And the ones the Kings have let go? The most effective "smaller" player drafted in Lombardi's tenure is Loktionov.

Unless my spreadsheet is outdated, the Kings have picked 15 players under 6' since Lombardi took over, out of 78 picks. Which is just under 20%. MOST of the picks made are Toffoli's height (6' - 6'1)... a total of 34/78 (43.5%).

As far as two way game types... offensive dynamos are fun to watch, but when they aren't scoring, what are they doing? I don't think wanting players who contribute in multiple facets of the game is necessarily a bad thing. Especially if these valuable players get parlayed into a more valuable player to help the organization... like the Hudson Fasching trade, or the Mike Richards trade (don't overlook how the Kings hit a home run with Simmonds).

I just don't agree with your perception of how the Kings have drafted. I agree they may not have the most top end skill in the pipeline, but I don't think it's necessarily for the reasons you perceive.

 

[Trolfoli]

Btw, no, I don't want a firesale. I want Detroit level endurance of performance. That should be the goal.

Don't really see that as possible as there are no replacements in the pipeline for Kopitar/Carter when they start heading down.

 

[BallPointHammer]

Right, but you literally said "Sometimes you have to let guys walk even if they may have another good year or two left. " I was just pointing out we've done that.

I totally understand on the history of draft trauma though

Bolded text by me.

Yes, you are correct. I didn't even realize I hadn't made the connection. I don't mean to cast doubt on Lombardi, he's done a masterful job. I imagine we all get nervous when we think he might do something one doesn't agree with.

 

[Herby]

Interesting debates.

kingsfan, I believe the cap will prevent anyone from ever having a decades long run like Detroit had, even if they do draft well. Lombardi talked big about having that with the Kings, but I think he finally figured out that it was unrealistic, he saw a six year window in 2011 and he went for it knowing full well that the Kings would be really really really bad once the window closed.

The fact is, it's hard to sustain this kind of success without re-tooling in the draft, and it's hard to re-tool when you trade away so many 1st rounders and miss on so many others. As Kingsfan alluded to, you can't try and replace Kopitar's, Carter's and Quick's by being good at drafting Andreoff's and Clifford's outside the first round. Detroit drafted four Hall of Famers outside of round 1 within a decades time, that will simply never happen again in today's world of scouting. Unfortunately for the Kings they basically got zero to show for Bernier, Hickey and Teubert and I think Forbort is likely heading down that same road.

The Kings have also dealt with bad luck as far as the roster goes, if someone had told you in 2012 that by 2015 that Voynov and Richards would both be gone for nothing in return you would have called them crazy.

It certainly is funny how things work out though, had the Kings not loaded up so heavy in 2007 and 2008 on defenseman, maybe they take OEL over Schenn in 2009. Or if they drafted Karlsson over Teubert in 2008. If the Kings have a d-core of Doughty, OEL and Muzzin all under 27 then maybe the window is open a lot longer.

 

[kingsfan]

What do you mean had, Herby? Detroit's still doing it and they've had two cup runs (one cup, one loss in the finals) post-cap. In a playoff spot again and have a fairly young core.

I'm not looking for a cup run year in and year out, but there's no reason we have to miss the playoffs to retool and -and this is just my opinion, I'd gladly be wrong- we are on pace to be going through a full rebuild like what we had a decade ago. Beyond Kempe there's a serious amount of question marks in that system.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

What do you mean had, Herby? Detroit's still doing it and they've had two cup runs (one cup, one loss in the finals) post-cap. In a playoff spot again and have a fairly young core.

I'm not looking for a cup run year in and year out, but there's no reason we have to miss the playoffs to retool and -and this is just my opinion, I'd gladly be wrong- we are on pace to be going through a full rebuild like what we had a decade ago. Beyond Kempe there's a serious amount of question marks in that system.

I guess the question is--and I'm not sure if there's a right answer--would you rather have peaks and valleys?

Detroit is obviously the exception because they've had peaks too, but most other teams don't do that--they just blackhole or first round exit year after year. If that's the alternative to going big and then going supernova, give me the team that burns out rather than the 2000 Kings. Just my opinion though.

 

[kingsfan]

Give me Detroit is my entire point

 

[Jason Lewis]

Give me Detroit is my entire point

I think we may be getting to the point where the overall value of the Detroit system is no longer the best example. They have had a wonderful run on their pipeline, but diminishing marginal utility has taken it's absolute toll.

They also have a pretty strange history of draft "Success". They hit on maybe one guy each year. But since 2012 their drafting has taken a dive.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/teams/dr00005492.html

98-05 was really no different except for a few years when they absolutely destroyed on players (05 - Abdelkader, Kindl, Helm.)(2002 - Hudler, Filppula, Ericsson)

Nevertheless, Detroit has really been about ONE big guy hitting it each year. They essentially get one surefire NHLer in each draft it seems. In some drafts it's Zetterberg, in other drafts it's Andrey Marchenko. If you go back to 98, which is 13 years...welp, that's 13-14 sure fire players and probably 5-6 other guys you got in the process of those drafts. 18-20 guys AKA a hockey team.

 

[kovacro]

I think we may be getting to the point where the overall value of the Detroit system is no longer the best example. They have had a wonderful run on their pipeline, but diminishing marginal utility has taken it's absolute toll.

They also have a pretty strange history of draft "Success". They hit on maybe one guy each year. But since 2012 their drafting has taken a dive.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/teams/dr00005492.html

98-05 was really no different except for a few years when they absolutely destroyed on players (05 - Abdelkader, Kindl, Helm.)(2002 - Hudler, Filppula, Ericsson)

Nevertheless, Detroit has really been about ONE big guy hitting it each year. They essentially get one surefire NHLer in each draft it seems. In some drafts it's Zetterberg, in other drafts it's Andrey Marchenko. If you go back to 98, which is 13 years...welp, that's 13-14 sure fire players and probably 5-6 other guys you got in the process of those drafts. 18-20 guys AKA a hockey team.

Don't know if you really can say they "smashed" that Kindl pick. For a 1st round selection, he has been a marginal NHL'er. Was he not even on waivers this season and no team took a gamble on him? It might be nitpicking but I'd say that year got them 2 quality NHLers in Helm and Abdelkader opposed to three.

Still think it's early to say their drafting has tailed off since 12'. The Wings are known to be painstakingly slow with developing their players so I would say the jury is still out on those draft classes...well maybe 12' but I think 13' still has a chance to have a few develop excluding Janmark who is doing well in Dallas.

Mantha and Bertuzzi still intrigue me.

I think they could have the potential to have done well in 14' obviously with Larkin but Turgeon could be one to watch as well.

I have seen Saarijavi (15' draft) a few times this season, I think he could be pretty good. Haven't seen Svechnikov much except for a little World Juniors action but he has put up some good numbers in the Q.

They also have Hicketts and Russo in the system via free agency who I believe they are high on.

 

[Jason Lewis]

Don't know if you really can say they "smashed" that Kindl pick. For a 1st round selection, he has been a marginal NHL'er. Was he not even on waivers this season and no team took a gamble on him? It might be nitpicking but I'd say that year got them 2 quality NHLers in Helm and Abdelkader opposed to three.

Still think it's early to say their drafting has tailed off since 12'. The Wings are known to be painstakingly slow with developing their players so I would say the jury is still out on those draft classes...well maybe 12' but I think 13' still has a chance to have a few develop excluding Janmark who is doing well in Dallas.

Mantha and Bertuzzi still intrigue me.

I think they could have the potential to have done well in 14' obviously with Larkin but Turgeon could be one to watch as well.

I have seen Saarijavi (15' draft) a few times this season, I think he could be pretty good. Haven't seen Svechnikov much except for a little World Juniors action but he has put up some good numbers in the Q.

They also have Hicketts and Russo in the system via free agency who I believe they are high on.

That's true, they incubate probably longer than any other organization in the NHL.

Ouellet may still turn into something the way they do things. Kings are starting to get that way as well.

 

[damacles1156]

Since 09-10 season, Detriot has not made it out of the Second round in the playoffs. Dats/Zets are going to retire soon, with zero replacements.

Do the Wings scare anyone ?, I would argue ,No. Would rather the Kings rebuild(when the time comes), than do what the Wings are doing.

 

[Bandit]

Give me Detroit is my entire point

6 years of second round exits with the stars on the verge of retirement? Why?