Ontario Reign 21-22 : I'm only happy when it Reigns

[Raccoon Jesus]

It does sound like a copout but I believe Byfield and Turcotte in particular will be more productive in the NHL than the AHL (given opportunity, of course). Think Durzi.

Edit: or think of 20 year old Draisaitl's 2 points in 6 AHL games in Byfield's case.

 

[Trash Panda]

Ah yes, if you dominate play and impose your will like QB has but don’t score you’re just playing great but could be better.. or if you drive all the play on your line and setup prime scoring chances but the sniper(Wagner) on your line can’t convert you’re not fulfilling your offensive potential..
my point still stands, if you’re just going off of stats and not actually watching the games either on the AHL network or live.. how are you folks drawing these conclusions? I think most here would say Alex Newhook has looked pretty damn good in the AHL and the NHL yet Turcotte dominated that matchup when they played.. he didn’t score so it gets overlooked.. you guys do realize guys like Tynan, Frk and other AAAA where brought in to help bring the kids along and have done just that!
Look no further than Raccoon Jebus’ breakdown of the Reigns most productive players and Turcotte is right there behind Tynan(MVP) and Frk. What that tells me is that is scoring isn’t an issue, I would be concerned if his defense was lagging but it’s been elite..
So you see what we have in Turcotte isn’t a kid that’s underperforming but rather living up to his billing as the best two way player in his draft class… now I’ll just wait while someone again mentions why he isn’t scoring more or if he’s so good why he isn’t in the NHL.. so whose going to be that guy and ask that???

TL;DR

My point still stands. You’ve gotta produce to be dominant. You don’t have to produce to be a damn good hockey player.

 

[kings11]

TL;DR

My point still stands. You’ve gotta produce to be dominant. You don’t have to produce to be a damn good hockey player.

Fair enough

 

[Herby]

TL;DR

My point still stands. You’ve gotta produce to be dominant. You don’t have to produce to be a damn good hockey player.

Your opinion is absolutely valid and fair. A scoring line forward drafted in the Top 10 does have to produce to warrant the selection, it is 100% correct. But it won't stop the same few people from making the same lame and tired posts about "stat watching" or sarcastically saying "he's a bust" when anyone brings up any kind of concerns whatsoever. Trust me I know, people have accused me of calling prospects "busts" and then when I ask them to cite any proof at all that I called a prospect a bust the crickets take over and I get no reply. What is always funny too is how people will say "stat watching" when it comes to criticism of prospects and then turn around and use the same stats and production to hype up another prospect who happens to be doing well statistically, you kind of saw that with Kaliyev and Clarke. Same thing happens with WJC, if a Kings prospect has a statistically strong WJC it's proof of how good they are (Turcotte and Kaliyev last year), and when a Kings prospect has a poor WJC it doesn't matter or is stat watching (Byfield last year). It's a hell of a contradiction but it happens all the time.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Your opinion is absolutely valid and fair. A scoring line forward drafted in the Top 10 does have to produce to warrant the selection, it is 100% correct. But it won't stop the same few people from making the same lame and tired posts about "stat watching" or sarcastically saying "he's a bust" when anyone brings up any kind of concerns whatsoever. Trust me I know, people have accused me of calling prospects "busts" and then when I ask them to cite any proof at all that I called a prospect a bust the crickets take over and I get no reply. What is always funny too is how people will say "stat watching" when it comes to criticism of prospects and then turn around and use the same stats and production to hype up another prospect who happens to be doing well statistically, you kind of saw that with Kaliyev and Clarke. Same thing happens with WJC, if a Kings prospect has a statistically strong WJC it's proof of how good they are (Turcotte and Kaliyev last year), and when a Kings prospect has a poor WJC it doesn't matter or is stat watching (Byfield last year). It's a hell of a contradiction but it happens all the time.

You're not accused of calling players busts straight up, you're accused of giving up too early. You wrote Turcotte off at 19.

To the rest of the meta-discussion garbage, you're just making it appear is if you don't understand nuance. No one ever says stats don't matter, only that they need context.

What is with all the forum sweeping generalization trash around here lately? The self-martyrdom is getting old. The general 'this forum is dumb' attacks from regular posters are gonna start getting deleted because even though they aren't 'personal' attacks they're going after the forum at-large with subtle digs at 'the opposition to my argument.'

 

[Schmooley]

Your opinion is absolutely valid and fair. A scoring line forward drafted in the Top 10 does have to produce to warrant the selection, it is 100% correct. But it won't stop the same few people from making the same lame and tired posts about "stat watching" or sarcastically saying "he's a bust" when anyone brings up any kind of concerns whatsoever. Trust me I know, people have accused me of calling prospects "busts" and then when I ask them to cite any proof at all that I called a prospect a bust the crickets take over and I get no reply. What is always funny too is how people will say "stat watching" when it comes to criticism of prospects and then turn around and use the same stats and production to hype up another prospect who happens to be doing well statistically, you kind of saw that with Kaliyev and Clarke. Same thing happens with WJC, if a Kings prospect has a statistically strong WJC it's proof of how good they are (Turcotte and Kaliyev last year), and when a Kings prospect has a poor WJC it doesn't matter or is stat watching (Byfield last year). It's a hell of a contradiction but it happens all the time.

You are right that there are concerns. Probably why they went out and signed Danault.
Though I think Byfield and Turcotte are very special cases where points dont tell the whole story. With guys like Kaliyev, Vilardi and Clarke you can definitely use production as a sign of growth.
Byfield is still a very raw player that they drafted in hopes he puts it all together. If all goes well the points will come when he matures and he will be a physically imposing player to play against.
Turcotte is more of an intangibles guy. If you want to use the WJC as a measuring stick for him, he started slow and got better as the games had more meaning. He was an absolute beast in the final game. He was a perfect specimen for a two way center. You dont see performances like that often with young players.
But with him you can have a future Mike Richards or a future Curtis Lazar.

 

[King'sPawn]

Your opinion is absolutely valid and fair. A scoring line forward drafted in the Top 10 does have to produce to warrant the selection, it is 100% correct. But it won't stop the same few people from making the same lame and tired posts about "stat watching" or sarcastically saying "he's a bust" when anyone brings up any kind of concerns whatsoever. Trust me I know, people have accused me of calling prospects "busts" and then when I ask them to cite any proof at all that I called a prospect a bust the crickets take over and I get no reply. What is always funny too is how people will say "stat watching" when it comes to criticism of prospects and then turn around and use the same stats and production to hype up another prospect who happens to be doing well statistically, you kind of saw that with Kaliyev and Clarke. Same thing happens with WJC, if a Kings prospect has a statistically strong WJC it's proof of how good they are (Turcotte and Kaliyev last year), and when a Kings prospect has a poor WJC it doesn't matter or is stat watching (Byfield last year). It's a hell of a contradiction but it happens all the time.

On top of what RJ said, those who point out the stats and criticize are accused of "stat watching" because they offer no substantive criticisms beyond lack of production.

You're worried about Byfield's production? I get it. What's he doing wrong? Is he deferring to others too much? Losing puck battles? Poor shot placement? Telegraphing?

If you provide substantive criticisms beyond numbers, and recognize these are growth areas, you'll get better discussion.

 

[LAKings88]

You are right that there are concerns. Probably why they went out and signed Danault.
Though I think Byfield and Turcotte are very special cases where points dont tell the whole story. With guys like Kaliyev, Vilardi and Clarke you can definitely use production as a sign of growth.
Byfield is still a very raw player that they drafted in hopes he puts it all together. If all goes well the points will come when he matures and he will be a physically imposing player to play against.
Turcotte is more of an intangibles guy. If you want to use the WJC as a measuring stick for him, he started slow and got better as the games had more meaning. He was an absolute beast in the final game. He was a perfect specimen for a two way center. You dont see performances like that often with young players.
But with him you can have a future Mike Richards or a future Curtis Lazar.

That’s the key with Turcotte and why I think he was drafted. Kings seem to draft with an eye on playoff hockey and character all things being even. I think Turcotte will be a big part of what it takes to win. Byfield could be a beast as well. Kings had every opportunity to take flash in Zegras and Stuetzle and decided against it. I waivered on each draft hoping for a little excitement to be added but glad nonetheless for both picks. Now the Kings still need to make it to the playoffs and start handing the team over to the next wave.

 

[Herby]

You're not accused of calling players busts straight up, you're accused of giving up too early. You wrote Turcotte off at 19.

To the rest of the meta-discussion garbage, you're just making it appear is if you don't understand nuance. No one ever says stats don't matter, only that they need context.

What is with all the forum sweeping generalization trash around here lately? The self-martyrdom is getting old. The general 'this forum is dumb' attacks from regular posters are gonna start getting deleted because even though they aren't 'personal' attacks they're going after the forum at-large with subtle digs at 'the opposition to my argument.'

I wrote Turcotte off at 19? Again, please cite a single example. And no, you are wrong, plenty of people accused me of calling him a bust, but go ahead and keep covering up for them it's cool and not surprising.

Getting back to topic, I said he wasn't going to be a 1st line center, which should have been the expectation of a player taken that high in the draft. I went out of my way to say numerous times that he still had a future as a 2nd or 3rd line center, but just that it was a disappointing result for a player taken so high. But people want to spin that into "bust".

As for the last part, if you want to do that maybe you should look at some others here who have on numerous occasions straight up made stuff up about things people have supposedly said, is that not a violation of some kind of rule? @Deaders Ghost never once accused Turcotte or Byfield of being busts, he simply made a factual statement that if top 10 picks don't produce offensively they can't be dominant and he gets accused of calling players "busts". I had to deal with similar stuff two years ago where I was accused by the same guy of "being a stat watcher" who "clearly never saw Turcotte play" when I had seen him play more than anyone else here, accused of calling a player a bust when I never did. Amazing how apparently those posts are totally fine, but what I said warrants posts being deleted.

On top of what RJ said, those who point out the stats and criticize are accused of "stat watching" because they offer no substantive criticisms beyond lack of production.

You're worried about Byfield's production? I get it. What's he doing wrong? Is he deferring to others too much? Losing puck battles? Poor shot placement? Telegraphing?

If you provide substantive criticisms beyond numbers, and recognize these are growth areas, you'll get better discussion.

KP,

First off, I have never said anything negative about QB. I said last year based on what Stuetzle did that the Kings and the Rangers probably would have changed their picks based on what had happened in the league so far, some disagreed with me and that is fine, I was more arguing the one in the hand vs two in the bush thing, and I know some don't buy that. But beyond that, what negative things have I said about QB or his production? I was simply defending the comments that someone else made, which I agree with. And I don't even find those comments controversial.

As far as substantive criticisms, I mean you have been here awhile, you want to go back and check past comments about generating substantive discussions? I saw Turcotte play four times in person his freshman year, which is probably four times more than anyone else here did. I tried to have discussions about his offensive ceiling and my feelings from seeing him in person that maybe the Kings weren't getting the typical return expected of a top 5 pick. I didn't mention numbers, I discussed seeing him play, and comparing it to my viewings of previous high end players at the same age and in the same conference that he lagged behind a guy like Dylan Larkin at the same age. I had expectations that with a Top 5 pick the Kings would be getting at worst a player comparable to Larkin, a very solid 1st-2nd line tweener in the NHL. I did not receive any substantive discussions in return, I was labeled a "stat watcher" a "hater" and was accused on numerous occasions of calling him a "bust" for saying he projected more as a middle six player than a 1st line or high end 2nd line player. Ofcourse none of those posts were flagged for warning or deletion even though posters made comments of what I supposedly said that were completely devoid of any factual reality, that is apparently A-ok on this board but whatever it was I said apparently enough to generate a warning.

I have UM season tickets and spend a lot time near Madison which lets me view many players for NHL factory programs. I give my perspective based on watching players play. I don't judge or evaluate players based on what NHL team drafts them. If I think a Ducks player is great I will say it, same as if I think a Kings player is not. Sometimes I come away very impressed with Kings prospects and think that we made great value picks (Faber) and sometimes I come away less impressed than I feel like I should be (Turcotte). I try and have substantive discussions but for many that is only possible to have if its in a positive light, everyone loved to ask me why I thought what I did about Faber but when it comes to Turcotte some just turn quickly and throw out the "stat watcher" or "hater stuff" which i find unfortunate. But to say that I don't like to have substantive discussions about what I see with my own two-eyes is to me pretty unfair.

 

[King'sPawn]

KP,

First off, I have never said anything negative about QB. I said last year based on what Stuetzle did that the Kings and the Rangers probably would have changed their picks based on what had happened in the league so far, some disagreed with me and that is fine, I was more arguing the one in the hand vs two in the bush thing, and I know some don't buy that. But beyond that, what negative things have I said about QB or his production? I was simply defending the comments that someone else made, which I agree with. And I don't even find those comments controversial.

As far as substantive criticisms, I mean you have been here awhile, you want to go back and check past comments about generating substantive discussions? I saw Turcotte play four times in person his freshman year, which is probably four times more than anyone else here did. I tried to have discussions about his offensive ceiling and my feelings from seeing him in person that maybe the Kings weren't getting the typical return expected of a top 5 pick. I didn't mention numbers, I discussed seeing him play, and comparing it to my viewings of previous high end players at the same age and in the same conference that he lagged behind a guy like Dylan Larkin at the same age. I had expectations that with a Top 5 pick the Kings would be getting at worst a player comparable to Larkin, a very solid 1st-2nd line tweener in the NHL. I did not receive any substantive discussions in return, I was labeled a "stat watcher" a "hater" and was accused on numerous occasions of calling him a "bust" for saying he projected more as a middle six player than a 1st line or high end 2nd line player. Ofcourse none of those posts were flagged for warning or deletion even though posters made comments of what I supposedly said that were completely devoid of any factual reality, that is apparently A-ok on this board but whatever it was I said apparently enough to generate a warning.

I have UM season tickets and spend a lot time near Madison which lets me view many players for NHL factory programs. I give my perspective based on watching players play. I don't judge or evaluate players based on what NHL team drafts them. If I think a Ducks player is great I will say it, same as if I think a Kings player is not. Sometimes I come away very impressed with Kings prospects and think that we made great value picks (Faber) and sometimes I come away less impressed than I feel like I should be (Turcotte). I try and have substantive discussions but for many that is only possible to have if its in a positive light, everyone loved to ask me why I thought what I did about Faber but when it comes to Turcotte some just turn quickly and throw out the "stat watcher" or "hater stuff" which i find unfortunate. But to say that I don't like to have substantive discussions about what I see with my own two-eyes is to me pretty unfair.

Hey Herby:

Regarding QB, it was more directed at you piggybacking on the previous comments about the numbers. I know you get in back-and-forths with me (and others). I didn't mean to insinuate you are talking negatively about Byfield. I'm sorry if I did.

Regarding Turcotte, I recall your general lack of enthusiasm with Turcotte. As far as specifics beyond "offensive ceiling" though, I genuinely don't recall anything specific. Like, what DON'T you like about his game? I genuinely want to know? Why is his offensive ceiling limited?

I admit you have likely seen him live more than any of us, at least pre-Ontario.

I do think he has limitations to his game - namely his release and in-tight stickhandling both need to improve. He's better with reflexive plays. That's just my read.

Long and short, my biggest issue is the lack of specific discussion, so it just becomes more of a general argument. If you thought I put words in your mouth or I (legit) forgot specific criticisms, I apologize and please know I legitimately respect your thoughts despite disagreements.

 

[Herby]

Hey Herby:

Regarding QB, it was more directed at you piggybacking on the previous comments about the numbers. I know you get in back-and-forths with me (and others). I didn't mean to insinuate you are talking negatively about Byfield. I'm sorry if I did.

Regarding Turcotte, I recall your general lack of enthusiasm with Turcotte. As far as specifics beyond "offensive ceiling" though, I genuinely don't recall anything specific. Like, what DON'T you like about his game? I genuinely want to know? Why is his offensive ceiling limited?

I admit you have likely seen him live more than any of us, at least pre-Ontario.

I do think he has limitations to his game - namely his release and in-tight stickhandling both need to improve. He's better with reflexive plays. That's just my read.

Long and short, my biggest issue is the lack of specific discussion, so it just becomes more of a general argument. If you thought I put words in your mouth or I (legit) forgot specific criticisms, I apologize and please know I legitimately respect your thoughts despite disagreements.

Thank you for the reply,

I don't feel to negative about QB, I was more defending the other guy for what I thought was a cheapshot on him for simply having an opinion that I think was very fair and then having to face the unfortunately typical response of someone incorrectly saying he called QB a bust when he didn't. Some people really need to stop thinking any kind of criticism is labeling someone a bust. Production isn't everything, but it is very important if a player taken #2 OA is going to be a success or not. If QB (and Turcotte) don't produce numbers in the NHL they aren't going to be successful picks, unless one of them ends up being a Patrice Bergeon level defensive center, which I think we all agree is unlikely.

As far as Turcotte, I think he got by and had a lot of success at lower levels due to his motor and compete level and being more skilled than players in the USHL. I think when he hit the NCAA (which is a big jump from the USHL) his skill level wasn't nearly as distant from the average player. His compete level is great but I just never saw 1st line or high end 2nd line player, which I expected from a player taken that high. Maybe my expectations were off and unfair, but I think with the #5 pick expecting a Dylan Larkin type player was a fair expectation, but Turcotte was just not really close to Larkin as a freshman in the same conference. Larkin was a game changer who's skill jumped out at you as an 18 year old and he was good enough to immediately jump to the NHL after 1 season and be a top-6 forward. Turcotte in college just never had that skill level where he backed off defenders and you got the feeling he was a threat to score everytime he was out there. He was not a bad player by any stretch, but from my two decades of watching college hockey he had the look more of someone who would go in the 20-30 range in the draft as opposed to someone who went 5th.

NCAA/USHL forwards to go in the Top 5 this century are

Dany Heatley (star player, fringe superstar in prime)
Thomas Vanek (1st line player, 3x 40 goal scorer)
Blake Wheeler (star player)
Jonathan Toews (hall of fame player)
Phil Kessel (star player)
JVR (2nd line player)
Kyle Turris (dsiappointment)
Jack Eichel (superstar, HOF potential)
Auston Matthews (superstar player, HOF potential)
Brady Tkachuk (budding star)
Jack Hughes (I think it's time to start using the D word here)
Matty Beniers (Turcotte +, does everything a little better but I still remain unsold on him being a 1st liner in the NHL)
Kent Johnson (highly skilled, but has a lot of issues)

Again, maybe I am placing expectations to high but for a #5 pick playing in the NCAA I expected a plug and play star player at that level.

 

[Statto]

Thank you for the reply,

I don't feel to negative about QB, I was more defending the other guy for what I thought was a cheapshot on him for simply having an opinion that I think was very fair and then having to face the unfortunately typical response of someone incorrectly saying he called QB a bust when he didn't. Some people really need to stop thinking any kind of criticism is labeling someone a bust. Production isn't everything, but it is very important if a player taken #2 OA is going to be a success or not. If QB (and Turcotte) don't produce numbers in the NHL they aren't going to be successful picks, unless one of them ends up being a Patrice Bergeon level defensive center, which I think we all agree is unlikely.

As far as Turcotte, I think he got by and had a lot of success at lower levels due to his motor and compete level and being more skilled than players in the USHL. I think when he hit the NCAA (which is a big jump from the USHL) his skill level wasn't nearly as distant from the average player. His compete level is great but I just never saw 1st line or high end 2nd line player, which I expected from a player taken that high. Maybe my expectations were off and unfair, but I think with the #5 pick expecting a Dylan Larkin type player was a fair expectation, but Turcotte was just not really close to Larkin as a freshman in the same conference. Larkin was a game changer who's skill jumped out at you as an 18 year old and he was good enough to immediately jump to the NHL after 1 season and be a top-6 forward. Turcotte in college just never had that skill level where he backed off defenders and you got the feeling he was a threat to score everytime he was out there. He was not a bad player by any stretch, but from my two decades of watching college hockey he had the look more of someone who would go in the 20-30 range in the draft as opposed to someone who went 5th.

NCAA/USHL forwards to go in the Top 5 this century are

Dany Heatley (star player, fringe superstar in prime)
Thomas Vanek (1st line player, 3x 40 goal scorer)
Blake Wheeler (star player)
Jonathan Toews (hall of fame player)
Phil Kessel (star player)
JVR (2nd line player)
Kyle Turris (dsiappointment)
Jack Eichel (superstar, HOF potential)
Auston Matthews (superstar player, HOF potential)
Brady Tkachuk (budding star)
Jack Hughes (I think it's time to start using the D word here)
Matty Beniers (Turcotte +, does everything a little better but I still remain unsold on him being a 1st liner in the NHL)
Kent Johnson (highly skilled, but has a lot of issues)

Again, maybe I am placing expectations to high but for a #5 pick playing in the NCAA I expected a plug and play star player at that level.

Genuine question on your viewing of Turcotte. Was that spread out across his spell in Uni? Or was it during his slow start/injury period or when he seemed (based on reports) to be starting to get it together and play better? I know his numbers improved but I’m not really worried about that specifically. I’m just trying to understand the context of when you’ve seen him.

 

[Fishhead]

Again, maybe I am placing expectations to high but for a #5 pick playing in the NCAA I expected a plug and play star player at that level.

Those expectations are highly dependent on draft year. Who in Turcotte's draft was a plug and play star?

2019 NHL Entry Draft Picks at hockeydb.com

Only 3 guys from that draft have played 100 games. How many look as good as Dylan Larkin? Expecting that type of player in the top-5 isn't generally unreasonable, but when the top 3 guys in a draft aren't at that level it's a bit unfair to expect that from #5.

 

[Mats26]

Those expectations are highly dependent on draft year. Who in Turcotte's draft was a plug and play star?

2019 NHL Entry Draft Picks at hockeydb.com

Only 3 guys from that draft have played 100 games. How many look as good as Dylan Larkin? Expecting that type of player in the top-5 isn't generally unreasonable, but when the top 3 guys in a draft aren't at that level it's a bit unfair to expect that from #5.

"Again, maybe I am placing expectations to high but for a #5 pick playing in the NCAA I expected a plug and play star player at that level." -Herby

He meant at that level...look at the 2019-2020 D+1 season, every forward was over a PPG. Zegras, Newhook, Caufield were killing it in the NCAA. Some in juniors had monster seasons and some were already in the NHL.

 

[Fishhead]

"Again, maybe I am placing expectations to high but for a #5 pick playing in the NCAA I expected a plug and play star player at that level." -Herby

He meant at that level...look at the 2019-2020 D+1 season, every forward was over a PPG. Zegras, Newhook, Caufield were killing it in the NCAA. Some in juniors had monster seasons and some were already in the NHL.

OK I see what he is saying now, but really that draft wasn't good regardless of development path. It looks like very few guys in that first round will be stars compared to most drafts. And even in the list of NCAA guys, how many of the more recent guys are stars? Matthews and Eichel of course, but those are 1OA talents. Matthews was one and Eichel would have been if it wasn't for McJesus. Then Tkachuk, who's getting there. I guess I don't understand why expectations should be so high when recent history shows it's far from a sure thing.

In general drafts haven't been great since the Matthews year. All the 1OA players have been pretty underwhelming in the last 5 drafts, and you could easily expand that to the top 5.

Hischier
Patrick
Heiskanen
Makar
Pettersson

Dahlin
Svechnikov
Kotkaniemi
Tkachuk
Hayton

Hughes
Kakko
Dach
Byram
Turcotte

Lafreniere
Byfield
Stutzle
Raymond
Sanderson

That's 2017-2020 as 2021 is so recent, but how many of those guys are stars in the league? I've bolded the ones that I think are. I'd put Heiskanen and Tkachuk knocking on the door. Byram looks like he will be but he's had injury problems. Even if you add those three in you have less than half of them developing into anything rapidly. I'd blame it on COVID but this started happening a couple of years before that showed up. We just haven't seen those dominant sure-thing-no-brainer guys for quite a few years now, and I can't fathom the reason.

 

[BillyCostigan]

OK I see what he is saying now, but really that draft wasn't good regardless of development path. It looks like very few guys in that first round will be stars compared to most drafts. And even in the list of NCAA guys, how many of the more recent guys are stars? Matthews and Eichel of course, but those are 1OA talents. Matthews was one and Eichel would have been if it wasn't for McJesus. Then Tkachuk, who's getting there. I guess I don't understand why expectations should be so high when recent history shows it's far from a sure thing.

In general drafts haven't been great since the Matthews year. All the 1OA players have been pretty underwhelming in the last 5 drafts, and you could easily expand that to the top 5.

Hischier
Patrick
Heiskanen
Makar
Pettersson

Dahlin
Svechnikov
Kotkaniemi
Tkachuk
Hayton

Hughes
Kakko
Dach
Byram
Turcotte

Lafreniere
Byfield
Stutzle
Raymond
Sanderson

That's 2017-2020 as 2021 is so recent, but how many of those guys are stars in the league? I've bolded the ones that I think are. I'd put Heiskanen and Tkachuk knocking on the door. Byram looks like he will be but he's had injury problems. Even if you add those three in you have less than half of them developing into anything rapidly. I'd blame it on COVID but this started happening a couple of years before that showed up. We just haven't seen those dominant sure-thing-no-brainer guys for quite a few years now, and I can't fathom the reason.

Heiskanen is a star, he's not even on the 1st pairing and having this kind of production. Insane player.

Kakko I do believe if he never played under Quinn he'd be further in his development, but stats aside he is the best player almost every night on ice for the Rangers. It's a matter of time before it translates on the scoresheet.

Would be safe to say Tkachuk is a star, already captain, 1st line, the first name you think of when talking about Ottawa.

Kotkaniemi is a bust for sure, Dach had that awful wrist injury and Chicago is in a downward spiral, Byfield hasn't had the chance to play this year yet but if he had im pretty sure he'd be a Calder favorite.

Byram from what he's shown is an incredible player. Let's hope concussions don't ruin his career because he's set for greatness. Jack Hughes has no one that can finish his plays but he does have flashes and a ton of potential.

Hischier and Lafreniere are the problematic two for me. Hischier never lived up to his potential, and Lafreniere was supposed to be a game changer from day 1. Apart from that, pretty solid draft classes imo. These kids deal with too much pressure, also draft classes are deeper now, and often times a lot of picks in the top 15 can be interchanged. Quinn Hughes would go #1 if there would be a redraft.

 

[Docgonzo]

Has there been any more news about Wroblewski?

 

[Ray Martyniuk]

Don't the Kings have to put Frk and Moverare on waivers to send them down to Ontario?

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Don't the Kings have to put Frk and Moverare on waivers to send them down to Ontario?

Not in this case as they were called up to the newly-reformed Taxi Squad

 

[funky]

Taxi squad might be the best thing that happened to the kings. It should give our kids a little more key ice time in the AHL It would be nice to see them get some power play minutes.

 

[cyclones22]

Taxi squad might be the best thing that happened to the kings. It should give our kids a little more key ice time in the AHL It would be nice to see them get some power play minutes.

You'd think. But I wouldn't put it passed these decision makers to stick our real prospects on the Taxi squad either.

 

[kilowatt]

Taxi squad might be the best thing that happened to the kings. It should give our kids a little more key ice time in the AHL It would be nice to see them get some power play minutes.

Austin Wagner was made for the taxi squad.

 

[DoktorJeep]

Reign should be getting Grans back early, which is a unexpected benefit.

 

[All The Kings Men]

Not in this case as they were called up to the newly-reformed Taxi Squad

"* Clubs will be permitted to assign a maximum of six (6) Players to their Taxi Squad. All such assignments will be subject to Waiver requirements as applicable. No individual Player may spend more than twenty (20) cumulative days on the Taxi Squad during the temporary formation period."

Unless Frk and Moverare fit the description of "emergency recalls" I feel like they should have had to be placed on waivers.

BUT I don't really understand any of it.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

"* Clubs will be permitted to assign a maximum of six (6) Players to their Taxi Squad. All such assignments will be subject to Waiver requirements as applicable. No individual Player may spend more than twenty (20) cumulative days on the Taxi Squad during the temporary formation period."

Unless Frk and Moverare fit the description of "emergency recalls" I feel like they should have had to be placed on waivers.

BUT I don't really understand any of it.

I agree with your interpretation of this. But it seems as if--not just for the Kings but for around the league--they're allowing for assignment to taxi squad and ignoring waiver rules unless they're actually slotted onto the active roster, i.e. Frk is clear unless he actually plays.