How would you rate our system? Can you find hockey mind who get paid to have an opinion outside of us on HF that says the Kings have a strong system? Our top talent was acquired late because they are complete wild cards. None are available to help. The other guys like Pearson are in no way projected to be impact players.
The system doesn't have a top end player, but neither do the systems of San Jose, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Vancouver, Chicago, etc. Why? Because you don't get that explosive talent from the later half of the draft. Yet these teams maintain success with smart drafting, cap management, and signings.
I'm not going to waste my time looking for a source for you. Kings have nabbed Toffoli, Vey, Pearson, Gravel, Bartosak, Andreoff, Deslauriers, Zykov, Mersch, etc in the draft. That's a solid system. It's no Tampa Bay, but Tampa is a team like LA was in 2010 just coming out of the rebuild. It's still miles better than the empty cupboards in places like Vancouver or Chicago.
This was not meant to be a super negative post. I was very careful to use the word struggling and also I gave credit for the cup win saying that it all worked. The whole point was that we are not in a position to have sustained success due to not hitting on draft picks or trading them for the win. Coupled with that we had to overpay to keep the guys that helped us win. That happens to winners, but many teams reload with younger guys.
Nobody here will call me a negative person. If anything I've annoyed everyone for many years defending players and team. This was meant to analyze our position. I'm sorry if I offended the prospect guys. I don't watch the prospects like many do. I do read outside views of our players and our system though.
The problem is that they ARE hitting on draft picks. Pulling guys like Zykov, Toffoli, Pearson, Vey, etc from 2nd round or later is great depth.
Look at a team like Chicago. There is no new Toews or Kane coming at all. Chicago is a team built very similiarly to the Kings. There's the top end of the draft picks (Toews, Kane, Seabrook v Doughty, Kopitar, Brown), shrewd trades (Sharp, Ladd, Leddy v Richards, Carter, Williams), smart signings (Hossa v Mitchell, Scuderi) and some smart later drafting (Keith, Crawford, Hjarlmarsson, Bolland, Byfuglien, Shaw v Voynov, Quick, Martinez, Muzzin, Clifford, Nolan, Lewis, Simmonds). Both teams have competed and have young cores.
Now look at the future. If you thinking LA can never compete for long, Chicago is in the same boat. Teravainen, Rantta, Pirri, Clendening, Hartman, Morin v Toffoli, Jones, Vey, Gravel, Zykov, Pearson is a remarkably similiar list. The depth is hard to judge but I doubt either one of these smart drafting teams has huge differences.
Boils down to, if you want those top end young talents you have to be bad. Kings are a really good team and have developed a system to bring complementary talent throughout the system. That's how good teams do it. Chicago is going to replace Toews Kane Keith. We are not going to have talent to replace Koputar, Doughty, Quick. Detroit is not going to replace Datsyuk, Zetterberg (and haven't replaced Lidstrom part why they are falling). Good teams just simply can't do it. What they can do is bring along talent to supplement that talent ala Shaw, Hjarlmarsson, Bickell or King, Voynov, Nolan.
I have no idea what your reading that says the Kings don't have a great system. It's plain wrong. Rather have the Kings deep deep system pulling all kinds of players from all over the place than a system with one superstar that everyone talks about with no depth. Even though uneducated people rank that superstar team higher, it's ok to be ignored in writing, the proof is on the ice.
