Question from a Sabres fan

[damacles1156]

People thought Quick's career was over when he got demoted to the ECHL.

Quick took it upon himself to get better.

 

[Brodeur]

I don't think it was because of a single player, but because of the obvious advantages to tanking - as exemplified by those two.

I'm not sure if it's urban legend or not, but I seem to recall a story about Ottawa's owner getting liquored up at some sort of party and bragging about tanking for Daigle (1993). NHL got wind of this and made sure that they got a lottery in place for the CBA negotiation in 1995.

It was amused when I dug up this random tidbit about the 1995 Draft Lottery. The NHL had its hands full with the other portions of the CBA and didn't actually outline how the lottery was going to work until just before the 1995 playoffs.

The Kings won that first draft lottery and moved from #7 to #3. Why was there a limit as to how far a winning team could move up?

Rewind back to the spring of 1995 when the NHL was deciding its lottery rules. Orlando was in the midst of having the best record in the Eastern Conference. They had won the 1993 lottery despite only having a 1 in 66 chance.

One NHL rep (I believe it was Chuck Fletcher who was working for Florida) grumbled about the NHL lottery rules after leaving the meeting. Basically he said that the NHL wanted to avoid an "Orlando situation" and that a team like Florida (picking 10th) had negligible interest in the lottery if it had no shot at #1.

 

[kingsfan]

Oh so they just have to replicate Detroit. Easy.

Doughty was a top pick. He's arguably one of the Kings top 3 players. You don't NEED them but it's the best way to get talent. Giving the worst team the worst pick in the first round is really counter productive. Not sure why Detroit should be written off anyways, since they have acheived all this by using low end picks, exactly what you claim can not possibly generate a cup winning team (or apparently even one capable of escaping the basement).

The kings don't win the cup if they get Dultan Leivelle instead of Doughty
They don't acquire Richards if they get Kyle Palmieri instead of BSchenn

No matter how well you draft and develop. Top picks are almost always on cup winning teams, and most time they play a CRUCIAL role.

Wanna be sarcastic or actually discuss?

Detroit was an example. If you'd like to do a breakdown on every NHL team, go nuts. You asked how its possible for some team to improve without getting a high pick, I showed you it is possible.

Several teams have not had a top five pick in years. Many years. That doesn't mean they can't improve. You saying Buffalo is forever doomed to the bottom of the NHL if they don't have the top pick? It's one player, and as I pointed out earlier in this thread the last 27 1st overall picks combined have six Stanley Cups. Only five have won a cup and two of them -Crosby and Fluery- did it together. So no, top picks are not almost on cup winning teams. In fact, percentage wise, there has been a top pick on just 18.5 per cent of the past 27 cup winning teams. Whether or not they were traded by their original team or kept.

Does it help? Certainly. But the discussion on this spawn from discussion on tanking and I said I'd be for this as a means to ensure tanking goes out the window. I'd be for it even if the Kings were dead last by a country mile.

If you think a team not being able to draft 1st overall but rather 30th overall will doom a team to be forever in the basement and be incapable of luring free agents, you need to re-evaluate how a proper team is built. It is not based on top end picks. Top end picks are the icing on the cake, not the cake itself. Look at Edmonton. Look at Atlanta. Look at the Islanders for a number of years. You can have the best picks you want, they mean very little if you don't know what the **** you are doing.

 

[Captain Mittens*]

Wanna be sarcastic or actually discuss?

Detroit was an example. If you'd like to do a breakdown on every NHL team, go nuts. You asked how its possible for some team to improve without getting a high pick, I showed you it is possible.

The Kings can now be used as an example. good times!!

 

[damacles1156]

You need both Top picks/Good drafting outside the first round, and proper development, to turn a franchise around.

Without Doughty the Kings would have ZERO Stanley Cup's pretty certain of that.

 

[ZeroPT*]

Wanna be sarcastic or actually discuss?

They aren't mutually exclusive but okay

Detroit was an example. If you'd like to do a breakdown on every NHL team, go nuts. You asked how its possible for some team to improve without getting a high pick, I showed you it is possible.

Possible yes. Rare. It's virtually impossible to follow the Detroit "model" they're a bunch of geniuses.

Several teams have not had a top five pick in years. Many years. That doesn't mean they can't improve.

I never said anything even close to that

You saying Buffalo is forever doomed to the bottom of the NHL if they don't have the top pick?

I never said anything even remotely close to that

It's one player, and as I pointed out earlier in this thread the last 27 1st overall picks combined have six Stanley Cups.

One player doesn't make a team. But if you get the top pick, you're adding a legitimate star piece to your team.

Only five have won a cup and two of them -Crosby and Fluery- did it together. So no, top picks are not almost on cup winning teams.

'Yeah lett's limit the top picks to just 1st overall.
Doughty was a 2nd overall pick.
Malkin was a 2nd overall pick
Toews was a 3rd overall pick

a top pick is a top youngster. Adding a top youngster to the top team while the bottom gets nothing is completely idiotic and you know it.

In fact, percentage wise, there has been a top pick on just 18.5 per cent of the past 27 cup winning teams. Whether or not they were traded by their original team or kept.

If you're limiting it to only #1 picks, yes you're right. But that's clearly just you using it for convenience towards your point. Doughty wasn't a top pick because he was 2nd overall I take it?

Does it help? Certainly. But the discussion on this spawn from discussion on tanking and I said I'd be for this as a means to ensure tanking goes out the window. I'd be for it even if the Kings were dead last by a country mile.

********. Go back to 08. You'd be completely fine with having a completely trash season and ending up with the 29th overall pick? if so something is completely wrong with you

If you think a team not being able to draft 1st overall but rather 30th overall will doom a team to be forever in the basement and be incapable of luring free agents, you need to re-evaluate how a proper team is built.

See, this is the kinda stuff you gotta stop. Putting words in other peoples mouths. I never even remotely said or implied ANYTHING of the sort. Being the worst NHL team generally means you have the least NHL talent. The #1, easiest, most efficient way to add talent is by drafting it yourself. And when you take that route away you're basically giving off the middle finger to the crap teams. It's like giving a kid a car with no keys and telling him "well, this one guy hotwired a car and was able to move so you can do it too!"

In case you don't get the analogy, the kid is the crap teams and the guy who hotwired a car is Detroit. The two best teams in the league are LA and Chicago. Those two teams, since 2005 have had 5 top picks. Those picks ended up being
Toews- Captain, best player on the team
Kane-2nd best player on the team
Hickey- Bust
Doughty-IMO the 2nd best player on LA
BSchenn-Piece that was used to acquire Richards who was important in the first cup win.

It is not based on top end picks. Top end picks are the icing on the cake, not the cake itself. Look at Edmonton. Look at Atlanta. Look at the Islanders for a number of years. You can have the best picks you want, they mean very little if you don't know what the **** you are doing.

Again. I never said that. My point is that it's the best way to build a team and to acquire talent. And taking that option away from teams is completely and utterly unfair.

How do you think as a Sabres fan I would feel when a team like Chicago who already has Kane,Toews,Hossa and a bunch of other stars gets McDavid while the Sabres get the #25 pick? How is that even remotely considered a solution?

 

[kingsfan]

Wow... Just... yeah. If you think being a top team is that linked to a high pick, then have at it. I'm checking out of this discussion.

 

[Captain Mittens*]

They aren't mutually exclusive but okay

Possible yes. Rare. It's virtually impossible to follow the Detroit "model" they're a bunch of geniuses.
I never said anything even close to that I never said anything even remotely close to that One player doesn't make a team. But if you get the top pick, you're adding a legitimate star piece to your team.
'Yeah lett's limit the top picks to just 1st overall.
Doughty was a 2nd overall pick.
Malkin was a 2nd overall pick
Toews was a 3rd overall pick

a top pick is a top youngster. Adding a top youngster to the top team while the bottom gets nothing is completely idiotic and you know it.


If you're limiting it to only #1 picks, yes you're right. But that's clearly just you using it for convenience towards your point. Doughty wasn't a top pick because he was 2nd overall I take it?


********. Go back to 08. You'd be completely fine with having a completely trash season and ending up with the 29th overall pick? if so something is completely wrong with you

See, this is the kinda stuff you gotta stop. Putting words in other peoples mouths. I never even remotely said or implied ANYTHING of the sort. Being the worst NHL team generally means you have the least NHL talent. The #1, easiest, most efficient way to add talent is by drafting it yourself. And when you take that route away you're basically giving off the middle finger to the crap teams. It's like giving a kid a car with no keys and telling him "well, this one guy hotwired a car and was able to move so you can do it too!"

In case you don't get the analogy, the kid is the crap teams and the guy who hotwired a car is Detroit. The two best teams in the league are LA and Chicago. Those two teams, since 2005 have had 5 top picks. Those picks ended up being
Toews- Captain, best player on the team
Kane-2nd best player on the team
Hickey- Bust
Doughty-IMO the 2nd best player on LA
BSchenn-Piece that was used to acquire Richards who was important in the first cup win.


Again. I never said that. My point is that it's the best way to build a team and to acquire talent. And taking that option away from teams is completely and utterly unfair.

How do you think as a Sabres fan I would feel when a team like Chicago who already has Kane,Toews,Hossa and a bunch of other stars gets McDavid while the Sabres get the #25 pick? How is that even remotely considered a solution?

This post exceeds the quote a single poster 8 times in a single post limit.

 

[DonKingKong]

I have always thought it would be interesting to make the bottom 5 teams or teams that pick in the top 5 in every draft be made to have to keep the players they pick for until they become RFA's. I know most of the time nothing would change but look at MPS getting waived today. It would at least add some level of consequence to a team when drafting in the top 5. The Oilers should have had to been stuck with him. Would at least have cost them the pick and its development time. Not a perfect idea but I think a step in the right direction. Look at the Oilers today, a total joke of a franchise with more top 10 draft picks then anyone else in the game yet still looking to draft at the bottom again this season. By the time their kids develop into legitimate NHL players they are ready to move on and make room for the next batch of kids. None of them will ever sniff a cup until massive changes are made and during this time the rest of the league loses out on being able to draft the elite players that come along. Who cares I guess.

 

[Choralone]

Lombardi did so much to bring the Kings where they are. In hindsight, it's easy to pick out a lot of the key ingredients and how they all fit together. It also took some luck, too. He had a plan, executed it, and adjusted elements when he had to. Under him, the Kings:

• Revamped scouting and player development from the ground up
• Made character and dressing-room fit important elements in identifying players they wanted
• Had AHL team play the same system as the NHL team to help focus player development and ease transition to the NHL
• Prioritized goalies, defensemen, and centers in the draft and essentially "overdrafted" them to ensure depth in those positions
• Didn't rush player development (mostly)
• Brought in character vets to fill holes and ensure young players were learning the right lessons

 

[Ron*]

Without Doughty the Kings would have ZERO Stanley Cup's pretty certain of that.

Without Jack Kent Cooke there would be no Los Angeles Kings.

Without your father there would be no damacles1156.

Without balls my name would be Rhonda.

Without the Sun there would be no life on Earth.

The "without" game is fun, no?

 

[ZeroPT*]

Wow... Just... yeah. If you think being a top team is that linked to a high pick, then have at it. I'm checking out of this discussion.

Solid counter argument. Very well thought out.

 

[Buddy The Elf]

Solid counter argument. Very well thought out.

In your own post you mention Brayden Schenn being used as a key piece to bring in Richards. Again, drafting high doesn't equate to being good in the future. It is how you develop those players and/or how you manage those (along with other) assets.

The Kings didn't just draft high for a few years and suddenly get good. Yes, getting Doughty was huge. Players like that aren't often available in the UFA market or even trades for that matter. So who knows where the Kings are without him. But the Kings drafted well in the later rounds, revamped their development system, brought in character players to change the culture of the organization and supplanted the home grown talent with players through trades. That required them drafting and developing players that were desirable to other teams. The Oilers have a **** ton of high end prospects but I'd bet most GM's in the NHL are leery of giving anything up of equal value for most of them just because of their lack of development.

 

[Magicman]

Lombardi did so much to bring the Kings where they are. In hindsight, it's easy to pick out a lot of the key ingredients and how they all fit together. It also took some luck, too. He had a plan, executed it, and adjusted elements when he had to. Under him, the Kings:

• Revamped scouting and player development from the ground up
• Made character and dressing-room fit important elements in identifying players they wanted
• Had AHL team play the same system as the NHL team to help focus player development and ease transition to the NHL
• Prioritized goalies, defensemen, and centers in the draft and essentially "overdrafted" them to ensure depth in those positions
• Didn't rush player development (mostly)
• Brought in character vets to fill holes and ensure young players were learning the right lessons

I am happy the Kings won the cup. But, Lombardi so ****ed up from the get go. His plan was to be a decent team while drafting/developing. He discusses this in his first presser.

The Cloutier signing decimated the Kings and is the #1 reason why they were a lottery team. That result was Doughty.

Because McCauley couldn't answer the bell, Kopitar was kept with the big club at season start, not sent down as was the plan. One can only guess as to whether Kopi would be a better or worse player.

Because Cloutier was such a failure the goaltending was exposed and because of this Quick got his opportunity along with a host of others. Had Cloutier been serviceable, Bernier would be the heir apparent and Quick more than likely doesn't get a change and is buried in the minors or is moved. Quick was always down on the depth chart in Lombardi's office. It was Labs and Ersberg who were the Kings tandem out of camp in 08/09. He was the backup to Bernier in Manchester and was only called up because he was older and the Kings didn't want to expose Bernier to the NHL with such a poor team in front of him.

All through his tenure the Kings failed to become a top tier team and his job was on the line all the way up to the 11/12 season. Lieweekly's e-mails that were made public noted this. So much so that if the Kings failed to make the playoffs or had a 1 round exit, he was gone.

Lombardi has not drafted a goalie in the first round since he's been here. Gibson in 11 in the 2nd is the highest the rest are 4th and lower round picks, not what I would call "Top priority". Bernier was taken in the draft Lombardi says he was hands off on and stated it was the Al Murray draft. So I don't see a real high priority on goalies.

As far as his early "Veteran Leaders" in the first few years, all were poor at best and a couple refused to sign off and trades and wouldn't bend on the NMC clauses.

Up until the 1st round series win vs Vancouver one could argue his tenure would have been over then had the Kings fired their coach, brought in more high priced talent, Carter, and flopped.

But the didn't so kudos to Lombardi.

 

[Ron*]

I am happy the Kings won the cup. But, Lombardi so ****ed up from the get go. His plan was to be a decent team while drafting/developing. He discusses this in his first presser.

The Cloutier signing decimated the Kings and is the #1 reason why they were a lottery team. That result was Doughty.

Because McCauley couldn't answer the bell, Kopitar was kept with the big club at season start, not sent down as was the plan. One can only guess as to whether Kopi would be a better or worse player.

Because Cloutier was such a failure the goaltending was exposed and because of this Quick got his opportunity along with a host of others. Had Cloutier been serviceable, Bernier would be the heir apparent and Quick more than likely doesn't get a change and is buried in the minors or is moved. Quick was always down on the depth chart in Lombardi's office. It was Labs and Ersberg who were the Kings tandem out of camp in 08/09. He was the backup to Bernier in Manchester and was only called up because he was older and the Kings didn't want to expose Bernier to the NHL with such a poor team in front of him.

All through his tenure the Kings failed to become a top tier team and his job was on the line all the way up to the 11/12 season. Lieweekly's e-mails that were made public noted this. So much so that if the Kings failed to make the playoffs or had a 1 round exit, he was gone.

Lombardi has not drafted a goalie in the first round since he's been here. Gibson in 11 in the 2nd is the highest the rest are 4th and lower round picks, not what I would call "Top priority". Bernier was taken in the draft Lombardi says he was hands off on and stated it was the Al Murray draft. So I don't see a real high priority on goalies.

As far as his early "Veteran Leaders" in the first few years, all were poor at best and a couple refused to sign off and trades and wouldn't bend on the NMC clauses.

Up until the 1st round series win vs Vancouver one could argue his tenure would have been over then had the Kings fired their coach, brought in more high priced talent, Carter, and flopped.

But the didn't so kudos to Lombardi.

What meds are you on? I want some.

 

[damacles1156]

Lombardi did have a little luck, but every GM does. Lombardi made the proper moves when needed.

I agree though that slobbering(over the Kings rebuild) in this thread is a being laid on a little thick.

Lombardi was almost out of job in 2012, it turned out well for us Kings fan's.

Bravo Lombardi.

 

[bmr]

We're all human - there is no GM in this league that is infallible. However, I do believe we have one of the best and he has the implemented a structure and system that will serve us for years to come. I was over on hockeydb early today and our drafting has come so very far from where it was. The Kings could have thrown a dart blindfolded and did better than some of the picks they had.

 

[kingsfan]

Solid counter argument. Very well thought out.

Lmao. You are obviously set on your view about draft high vs. low and I'm stuck on mine.

If you want some special treatment go back to the Sabres board. You came here asking a question, don't get bent if someone posts something you don't agree with.

 

[ZeroPT*]

In your own post you mention Brayden Schenn being used as a key piece to bring in Richards. Again, drafting high doesn't equate to being good in the future. It is how you develop those players and/or how you manage those (along with other) assets.

The Kings didn't just draft high for a few years and suddenly get good. Yes, getting Doughty was huge. Players like that aren't often available in the UFA market or even trades for that matter. So who knows where the Kings are without him. But the Kings drafted well in the later rounds, revamped their development system, brought in character players to change the culture of the organization and supplanted the home grown talent with players through trades. That required them drafting and developing players that were desirable to other teams. The Oilers have a **** ton of high end prospects but I'd bet most GM's in the NHL are leery of giving anything up of equal value for most of them just because of their lack of development.

No of course drafting high doesn't equate to winning. But it certainly helps. Tampa and the Isles and the Pens are the class of the east. There best players are mostly high picks.

It matters how you develop them, yes. But taking away the easiest way to acquire talent and spread it around the league is lame and definitely not a good solution to anything.

Lmao. You are obviously set on your view about draft high vs. low and I'm stuck on mine.

If you want some special treatment go back to the Sabres board. You came here asking a question, don't get bent if someone posts something you don't agree with.

Not looking for any special treatment. My question was not what you brought up. I just wanted to know if the kings fan base were split on the "tanking" when they were rebuilding. That's all.

Why would I actively look for "special treatment"? The hell?

 

[kingsfan]

Not looking for any special treatment. My question was not what you brought up. I just wanted to know if the kings fan base were split on the "tanking" when they were rebuilding. That's all.

Why would I actively look for "special treatment"? The hell?

Hell if I know. Why come to another teams board and argue opinions either? You don't care for my thoughts, thats fine, shuffle along.

 

[ZeroPT*]

Hell if I know. Why come to another teams board and argue opinions either? You don't care for my thoughts, thats fine, shuffle along.

I didn't. You engaged. I asked a question and it got answered. And then you started talking about giving the top teams top picks.

And why are you so defensive? I don't care about your thoughts? What? I never said that.

 

[Rorschach]

Hey giuys! I come in peace. This is a question for the guys who've been around for a while. But first, some context.

As I'm sure you know, the Sabres are rebuilding. And this year is the year where the draft holds two amazing prospects. The Sabres fan base wanted to finish last in order to guarantee McEichel. Now that the team has won a lot of games the fan base has kinda split off into two camps. One camp is that the Sabres are doomed and the other camp is that the sabres already have elite youngsters. And here is where the Kings come into play. The Kings and Sabres rebuilds are nearly identical. It's scary how close they are. Especially since in the 2009 draft (Tavares and Hedman draft) the Kings got the #5 pick.

My question is: Was your fan base split? Did you guys want to tank or were you content with the way things are going?

Actually our two rebuilds are nothing alike. The closest thing is Edmonton's faux-build except Lombardi is the opposite of the front office in Edmonton. The Edmonton situation diverged greatly when they got Yakupov instead of Murray. Kings won that one extra game and got Doughty instead of Stamkos. Both teams had a collection of good forwards, wingers, few defensemen and no goaltender. Lombardi came in and added the goaltender the first draft he was there.

 

[MOGlLNY]

Sadly when the Kings were in the basement, they actually tried to put out the best roster they could.. They were just that horrid.

I am happy the Kings won the cup. But, Lombardi so ****ed up from the get go. His plan was to be a decent team while drafting/developing. He discusses this in his first presser.

The Cloutier signing decimated the Kings and is the #1 reason why they were a lottery team. That result was Doughty.

Because McCauley couldn't answer the bell, Kopitar was kept with the big club at season start, not sent down as was the plan. One can only guess as to whether Kopi would be a better or worse player.

Because Cloutier was such a failure the goaltending was exposed and because of this Quick got his opportunity along with a host of others. Had Cloutier been serviceable, Bernier would be the heir apparent and Quick more than likely doesn't get a change and is buried in the minors or is moved. Quick was always down on the depth chart in Lombardi's office. It was Labs and Ersberg who were the Kings tandem out of camp in 08/09. He was the backup to Bernier in Manchester and was only called up because he was older and the Kings didn't want to expose Bernier to the NHL with such a poor team in front of him.

All through his tenure the Kings failed to become a top tier team and his job was on the line all the way up to the 11/12 season. Lieweekly's e-mails that were made public noted this. So much so that if the Kings failed to make the playoffs or had a 1 round exit, he was gone.

Lombardi has not drafted a goalie in the first round since he's been here. Gibson in 11 in the 2nd is the highest the rest are 4th and lower round picks, not what I would call "Top priority". Bernier was taken in the draft Lombardi says he was hands off on and stated it was the Al Murray draft. So I don't see a real high priority on goalies.

As far as his early "Veteran Leaders" in the first few years, all were poor at best and a couple refused to sign off and trades and wouldn't bend on the NMC clauses.

Up until the 1st round series win vs Vancouver one could argue his tenure would have been over then had the Kings fired their coach, brought in more high priced talent, Carter, and flopped.

But the didn't so kudos to Lombardi.

What the **** is this?

 

[kingsfan]

I didn't. You engaged. I asked a question and it got answered. And then you started talking about giving the top teams top picks.

And why are you so defensive? I don't care about your thoughts? What? I never said that.

I posted the following, in reply to NO ONE:

"I'd honestly like to see the rich get richer, let the best team draft 1st and the worst team draft last. Any tanking risk would be instantly gone."

You jumped on it and started picking it apparent, which again if if you have a differing opinion fine, whatever. But it was you that engaged, not me.

I'm not defensive, I just find it humourous that a random Sabres fan comes over here to ask a question then starts arguing about a Kings fan opinion that, while it is about draft picks, it isn't related to the question he posted.

 

[Reclamation Project]

I stopped reading after this.

I am happy the Kings won the cup. But, Lombardi so ****ed up from the get go. His plan was to be a decent team while drafting/developing. He discusses this in his first presser.

The Cloutier signing decimated the Kings and is the #1 reason why they were a lottery team. That result was Doughty.

Because McCauley couldn't answer the bell, Kopitar was kept with the big club at season start, not sent down as was the plan. One can only guess as to whether Kopi would be a better or worse player.

Because Cloutier was such a failure the goaltending was exposed and because of this Quick got his opportunity along with a host of others. Had Cloutier been serviceable, Bernier would be the heir apparent and Quick more than likely doesn't get a change and is buried in the minors or is moved. Quick was always down on the depth chart in Lombardi's office. It was Labs and Ersberg who were the Kings tandem out of camp in 08/09. He was the backup to Bernier in Manchester and was only called up because he was older and the Kings didn't want to expose Bernier to the NHL with such a poor team in front of him.

All through his tenure the Kings failed to become a top tier team and his job was on the line all the way up to the 11/12 season. Lieweekly's e-mails that were made public noted this. So much so that if the Kings failed to make the playoffs or had a 1 round exit, he was gone.

Lombardi has not drafted a goalie in the first round since he's been here. Gibson in 11 in the 2nd is the highest the rest are 4th and lower round picks, not what I would call "Top priority". Bernier was taken in the draft Lombardi says he was hands off on and stated it was the Al Murray draft. So I don't see a real high priority on goalies.

As far as his early "Veteran Leaders" in the first few years, all were poor at best and a couple refused to sign off and trades and wouldn't bend on the NMC clauses.

Up until the 1st round series win vs Vancouver one could argue his tenure would have been over then had the Kings fired their coach, brought in more high priced talent, Carter, and flopped.

But the didn't so kudos to Lombardi.