Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Anderson did most of his development in two years of college. Vilardi did explode. Durzi only made it out of sheer luck due to losing two roster's worth of dmen to injury--was our 10th dman and got by on moxie and individualism not technical skill and he's still absolutely lost on defense
I get your point that if we audit other organizations we will see some things too but I think above is a pretty specific complaint about developing IN LA vs. away from LA
Ive said before if some of them bust it is what it is...but when ALL of them are busting? Look at the system and an entire decade of 1st and 2nd round picks. I blame it on development. But if you want to blame it instead on drafting then why the hell are these people still employed? I think it's more to do with LA being smug and trying to re-invent the wheel with development. We're now running these guys into waiver exemption before even seeing what they've got and if none of them have 'it' well that's an admission of bad development.
I do feel its mostly drafting. I dont think they are on the same page when it comes to high picks and it shows. I think they are money in the later rounds. I like Yanetti, but he’s a salesman.
Development plays a part, but they need someone else with draft input to improve the high end. I get the Turcotte pick, but his size was always a flag as he’s not totally dynamic like a Kane. Its like they had all their eggs in the Byram basket and barely had a plan B. It screams poor planning.
A lot of really good points here.... It really does seem like once players get to LA the growth and development just completely stops.
Hopefully some of it is just coincidence / slow growth but the examples are just piling up at this point.
Even looking at a guy like Laferriere - who looks amazing right now and looks like he's taken some big steps forward to actually ELEVATE his status compared to where he was drafted..... So far, his development has happened AWAY from the Kings.
I'd say it's puzzling......... But is it???? I mean look at our development staff. Stoll, Greene, O'Donnell, Nate Thompson...... Don't get me wrong I love those guys and they were solid enough players for us when they played but are they REALLY who we want in charge of developing high tier NHL talent??? Those guys weren't even high end NHLers in their prime... How are they supposed to teach other players how to be high end / high skill talents when that was never their game to begin with???
Kings should do a complete purge/overhaul of their development staff - ESPECIALLY if we don't see big steps forward from at least a few young players this year.
I’m not defending the development but the assertion that how good they were as players makes them good/bad coaches is completely wrong. Thompson could become the best skill coach ever seen in the NHL, his playing ability won’t be the determining factor. If he’s good it’ll help slightly and if he’s bad it may mitigate his failings a little but if he can coach, he can coach (Or not).
A lot of really good points here.... It really does seem like once players get to LA the growth and development just completely stops.
Hopefully some of it is just coincidence / slow growth but the examples are just piling up at this point.
Even looking at a guy like Laferriere - who looks amazing right now and looks like he's taken some big steps forward to actually ELEVATE his status compared to where he was drafted..... So far, his development has happened AWAY from the Kings.
I'd say it's puzzling......... But is it???? I mean look at our development staff. Stoll, Greene, O'Donnell, Nate Thompson...... Don't get me wrong I love those guys and they were solid enough players for us when they played but are they REALLY who we want in charge of developing high tier NHL talent??? Those guys weren't even high end NHLers in their prime... How are they supposed to teach other players how to be high end / high skill talents when that was never their game to begin with???
Kings should do a complete purge/overhaul of their development staff - ESPECIALLY if we don't see big steps forward from at least a few young players this year.
Turcotte is absolutely ready to play in the NHL. His health and durability are the question, not ability. If healthy there is no reason why he wouldn't be considered.
I do feel its mostly drafting. I dont think they are on the same page when it comes to high picks and it shows. I think they are money in the later rounds. I like Yanetti, but he’s a salesman.
Development plays a part, but they need someone else with draft input to improve the high end. I get the Turcotte pick, but his size was always a flag as he’s not totally dynamic like a Kane. Its like they had all their eggs in the Byram basket and barely had a plan B. It screams poor planning.
The evidence all overwhelmingly points at piss poor development.
Offensive players don't just rely on ability but also confidence and mindset. The Kings approach to developing skilled forwards neuters all confidence and aggressiveness out of their game. Not every player needs to "check for their chances", yet the same dulled edge of a cookie cutter is used regardless of pedigree.
Turcotte is absolutely ready to play in the NHL. His health and durability are the question, not ability. If healthy there is no reason why he wouldn't be considered.
Turcotte is absolutely ready to play in the NHL. His health and durability are the question, not ability. If healthy there is no reason why he wouldn't be considered.
I do feel its mostly drafting. I dont think they are on the same page when it comes to high picks and it shows. I think they are money in the later rounds. I like Yanetti, but he’s a salesman.
Don't agree here. The players the Kings are drafting are fine and the skill is there. A very high level of skill is there. That's why this prospect pool was rated so highly a few years ago.
But the way I see it is there is an alarming trend of players developing and improving outside of the Kings organization, and then as soon as they hit Ontario or LA they stop.
Think of it this way, how many players have significantly improved and moved up the depth chart since making their NHL debut? There are far, FAR too many players that played their best hockey for the Kings their rookie year and just never improved or got worse as time went on.
Heck even Iafallo never really improved past the 30-40 point guy he was as a rookie.
Something is causing a significant amount of players to completely stagnate once they join the Kings and/or Reign and that's ALL development.
The evidence all overwhelmingly points at piss poor development.
Offensive players don't just rely on ability but also confidence and mindset. The Kings approach to developing skilled forwards neuters all confidence and aggressiveness out of their game. Not every player needs to "check for their chances", yet the same dulled edge of a cookie cutter is used regardless of pedigree.
I get that part too, which is why I think they generally suck with top picks overall. Development is part of it, but I think they struggle even more with identification.
Look at Arty for example. I want him to be some lights-out sniper because he has the shot for it, but he's just not that good of a hockey player. They haven't been perfect with him, but there is a reason he fell to the 2nd round. If a lot of other teams are good at developing and the Kings suck at it, surely one of them would have taken a scorer like him before #33? Right now he's 9th in points for forwards in his draft class and 8th in goals even with our pathetic development. And he was the 22nd forward taken in the draft. If it was mainly development some other team would have noticed his skill and snapped him up sooner. And even with what we perceive as poor development, he's punching above his weight class with respect to production. Like way above. He's not underachieving at all, it's that the expectations were out of whack.
I just don't think they can identify top-end forward talent (i.e. top 10 or so picks) at least the ones who are ready to go out of the gate. They are great with identifying defense, obviously.
Don't agree here. The players the Kings are drafting are fine and the skill is there. A very high level of skill is there. That's why this prospect pool was rated so highly a few years ago.
But the way I see it is there is an alarming trend of players developing and improving outside of the Kings organization, and then as soon as they hit Ontario or LA they stop.
Think of it this way, how many players have significantly improved and moved up the depth chart since making their NHL debut? There are far, FAR too many players that played their best hockey for the Kings their rookie year and just never improved or got worse as time went on.
Heck even Iafallo never really improved past the 30-40 point guy he was as a rookie.
Something is causing a significant amount of players to completely stagnate once they join the Kings and/or Reign and that's ALL development.
Trying to think of who has significantly improved.
Vliardi did before he was traded.
Lizotte for sure, leaps and bounds.
Moore started with Toronto, but improved by leaps and bounds here.
Kaliyev saw a substantial increase in production between his first and second season.
Anderson has gotten better and better.
Durzi got way better.
Matt Roy has gotten better every single year.
Who has gotten worse after their rookie year?
Bjornfot has stagnated, wouldn't say he's gotten worse.
Kempe did have a solid rookie year then stepped back a bit, but it was more of a sophomore slump. Whatever the team did eventually worked.
I'm probably missing someone but can't think of any others, really. Maybe someone can chime in here.
Who has developed outside the organization? I don't think a trend with this is even possible simply because the Blake regime has traded very few young roster players. Kubalik, obviously, but that was out of the Kings control. He never developed with the Kings anyway and he's devolved more than any Kings player has since his rookie year. The only other one I can think of is Amadio, who has stepped up. But it took him 3 teams to do it, and people here couldn't wait to get rid of him. Wagner? Watson? Fantenberg? Andreoff? Pearson? Did Muzzin get any better? Look at the team's trade history and see if you can come up with anyone who blossomed after being traded by this regime. I literally can't find anyone, but maybe someone else can. I can't think of any youngish guys that were brought in that have fallen apart. For the most part trades have been very good.
All the hubub about development basically comes down to two guys - Byfield and Turcotte - because those were our biggest shots and so far they've blown it. One is developing slowly (and will get there) and the other has been concussed most of the time. And I'm not saying development is playing no part at all, there are obvious issues. It's just not the total shitshow it's made out to be, and it's no different than any other team around the league.
Trying to think of who has significantly improved.
Vliardi did before he was traded.
Lizotte for sure, leaps and bounds.
Moore started with Toronto, but improved by leaps and bounds here.
Kaliyev saw a substantial increase in production between his first and second season.
Anderson has gotten better and better.
Durzi got way better.
Matt Roy has gotten better every single year.
Who has gotten worse after their rookie year?
Bjornfot has stagnated, wouldn't say he's gotten worse.
Kempe did have a solid rookie year then stepped back a bit, but it was more of a sophomore slump. Whatever the team did eventually worked.
I'm probably missing someone but can't think of any others, really. Maybe someone can chime in here.
Who has developed outside the organization? I don't think a trend with this is even possible simply because the Blake regime has traded very few young roster players. Kubalik, obviously, but that was out of the Kings control. And he's devolved more than any Kings player has since his rookie year. The only other one I can think of is Amadio, who has stepped up. But it took him 3 teams to do it, and people here couldn't wait to get rid of him. Wagner? Watson? Fantenberg? Andreoff? Pearson? Did Muzzin get any better? Look at the team's trade history and see if you can come up with anyone who blossomed after being traded by this regime. I literally can't find anyone, but maybe someone else can. I can't think of any youngish guys that were brought in that have fallen apart. For the most part trades have been very good.
All the hubub about development basically comes down to two guys - Byfield and Turcotte - because those were our biggest shots and so far they've blown it. One is developing slowly (and will get there) and the other has been concussed most of the time. And I'm not saying development is playing no part at all, there are obvious issues. It's just not the total shitshow it's made out to be, and it's no different than any other team around the league.
Acknowledged Vilardi already.
Lizotte is going to be 26 years old soon and went straight from college to NHL at age 22.
Trevor Moore is 28 years old and just broke out.
We have covered Kaliyev.
Anderson we covered too, straight from NCAA to NHL.
Durzi...lol. Covered but not gonna harp on it too hard.
Matt Roy is a good one, good story. But far from a blue chip offensive powerhouse, they took just a guy and made him a very good defensive dman.
Guys that have been traded over last decade that "blossomed" (I don't think that's the right term but they were finally being used appropriately): Amadio, Dowd, Kubalik, Cernak, Middleton, Pearson, Toffoli, Fasching, Colin Miller, Deslauriers, obvious ones like Simmonds and Schenn, arguably Nick Shore, Weal, and Eyssimont
I covered the entire decade of 1st and 2nd round picks in another post:
Lafreniere came into a situation where he was playing for a team with Stanley Cup aspirations. He had to learn how to grind and play defensively to get any ice time. Stutzle came in and was allowed to be a -40. Lafreniere and Byfield were developed very differently than the others and it didnt...
forums.hfboards.com
"
It's not just Byfield, though. Look at the f***ery all the top picks go through.
-Clarke--best metrics on the team, then they decided to move him to the left (to bail themselves out of a problem of their own creation), he stuttered, they shipped him to the AHL TO NOT PLAY for a month, then to juniors. The f*** are we doing here?
-Byfield, and Herby covered Turcotte;
-Bjornfot--played an entire NHL season in the big league then...just doesn't anymore.
-Kaliyev--leading PP scorer, gotta stay on the 4th line and grind his way up I guess.
-Fagemo--bides his time, scores in limited minutes, back to the minors forever.
-Spence--barely allowed a cup of coffee, have to give those minutes to Walker, Durzi...oh wait, those guys are no longer with the team? huh. Thank goodness we also had Mark Alt, Christian Wolanin....
-Kupari--he might be nothing but what is he supposed to do without a defined role, like why draft a toolsy top sixer and play him as such in the AHL then give him halftime in limited minutes on the 4th line
-Vilardi--may be the only one I'm willing to give them rope on due to the injury but it's looking more and more like they couldn't deal with his fire
-JAD/Grundstrom--sure let's just kick you around because it's more important for us to have MacEwen and Frk and Luff and Wagner in those spots than for you to develop and oh wait those guys are no longer with the team? huh.
-Clague--ended up being a whole lot of nothing either but does anyone remember how much this guy was getting dicked around? I was pissed and vocal about that at the time and ended up being right about it being a harbinger of how the org handles kids unfortunately.
Look how long it took them to figure out what to do with Kempe, for instance.
Like no, they're not all going to pan out. And once in a while, it's okay to have a weird development path. But it's ALL of them going thru weird shit and roster depth hazing, and ALL of them are struggling. It's not 'luck' or coincidence when that's the case. THAT IS ONE ENTIRE DECADE OF 1ST AND 2ND ROUND PICKS accounted for. If it were just luck, where's the 'good luck' version of a guy defying expectations and shitty deployment and succeeding anyway? It doesn't exist because any time a guy starts to break thru, they get buried. Bad development, bad deployment is why we are here."
I thought Emerson was a loyalty hire as well, just pure nepotism. Bowling Green, etc. But 3 years after they name him development coordinator they win a cup.
Acknowledged Vilardi already.
Lizotte is going to be 26 years old soon and went straight from college to NHL at age 22.
Trevor Moore is 28 years old and just broke out.
We have covered Kaliyev.
Anderson we covered too, straight from NCAA to NHL.
Durzi...lol. Covered but not gonna harp on it too hard.
Matt Roy is a good one, good story. But far from a blue chip offensive powerhouse, they took just a guy and made him a very good defensive dman.
Guys that have been traded over last decade that "blossomed" (I don't think that's the right term but they were finally being used appropriately): Amadio, Dowd, Kubalik, Cernak, Middleton, Pearson, Toffoli, Fasching, Colin Miller, Deslauriers, obvious ones like Simmonds and Schenn, arguably Nick Shore, Weal, and Eyssimont
I covered the entire decade of 1st and 2nd round picks in another post:
Lafreniere came into a situation where he was playing for a team with Stanley Cup aspirations. He had to learn how to grind and play defensively to get any ice time. Stutzle came in and was allowed to be a -40. Lafreniere and Byfield were developed very differently than the others and it didnt...
Cmon, Dowd? Kubalik never developed with the Kings, like at all. Pearson got absolutely worse. Toffoli was already good, and the Kings weren't holding him back. If you discount Lizotte at 26, how old was Toffoli? Fasching hasn't done shit. Shore hasn't done shit. Weal didn't do shit. Eyssimont didn't do shit. Miller turned out pretty good, but we were winning cups when he was traded, there was no room. And that's the previous regime.
Look at that list and think of guys who "Man we blew it when they got away". Cernak for sure. But who else?
You can't discount Roy with an asterix and then name a bunch of guys who are worse than he is. How many of the guys you listed are blue chip?
Seriously, the Kings aren't substantially different than any other team with terms of development. With the big exception of top level draft picks. They are better than most other teams later in the draft.
Cmon, Dowd? Kubalik never developed with the Kings, like at all. Pearson got absolutely worse. Toffoli was already good, and the Kings weren't holding him back. If you discount Lizotte at 26, how old was Toffoli? Fasching hasn't done shit. Shore hasn't done shit. Weal didn't do shit. Eyssimont didn't do shit. Miller turned out pretty good, but we were winning cups when he was traded, there was no room. And that's the previous regime.
Look at that list and think of guys who "Man we blew it when they got away". Cernak for sure. But who else?
You can't discount Roy with an asterix and then name a bunch of guys who are worse than he is. How many of the guys you listed are blue chip?
Seriously, the Kings aren't substantially different than any other team with terms of development. With the big exception of top level draft picks. They are better than most other teams later in the draft.
-Dowd is a stanley cup champion 4C. best season away from the Kings.
-Kubalik developing overseas is exactly why we're critical of the Kings
-Pearson left after a broken leg of course he was never the same again--BUT he had his best season one year removed from the Kings...and of course he was drafted as an overager
-Toffoli is probably our best example of good development, yet by far his best season was away from the Kings.
-Fasching was at a 32 point pace last year, that's fine for a bottom sixer.
-Shore hasn't done shit, that's fine, but several playoff teams had him in a defensive role where the worthless Kings couldn't find a spot for him.
-Eyssimont also at a 30+ point pace and just signed for two years with tampa bay
-Colin Miller turned out 'pretty good', putting up 41 points in a role for Vegas and has now been on deep playoff runs on both VGK and DAL
No one is saying oh no we blew it other than really on Cernak--but that wasn't your question. We aren't trying to cry over spilt milk here--your question verbatim was 'who developed outside the organization' and some of it is development and lots of it is usage/deployment but this is a list of players as long OUT of the organization as WITHIN the organization. Does that not strike you as even slightly problematic? It also shows the drafting is, by and large, 'fine' at worst, given the amount of late draftees finding NHL success.
If you're going to go out of your way to discredit those guys, why don't you also address my list of guys within the org?
And yes--I showed how the Kings were different in their development. No one is doing nearly as goofy of shit with especially their top picks as we are.
Edit: and re Roy: I'd say that's an example of good development too. But that's a 7th rounder drafted as an offensive dman who became a good gritty defensive force. That seems more like an accident than a blueprint at this point.
It's not an asterisk, it's the point that the Kings are great at developing JAGs with late picks but dog food at developing blue chip/offensive talents with higher picks. Unless one of these guys pans out hard in the next year or two--that's a literal DECADE of WASTED 1st and 2nd round picks. And even if one pans out, that's just one out of 20-ish!
Edit Edit: and finally--this is all just to say we're at a MAJOR crossroads/inflection point right now. Everything I say above COULD be invalidated in a few weeks. But if several guys entering now their D+4 to D+6 years aren't showing up, then yeah, I think all our criticisms and worries start looking troublingly accurate. I'd love to be completely and horribly wrong.
Don't agree here. The players the Kings are drafting are fine and the skill is there. A very high level of skill is there. That's why this prospect pool was rated so highly a few years ago.
But the way I see it is there is an alarming trend of players developing and improving outside of the Kings organization, and then as soon as they hit Ontario or LA they stop.
Think of it this way, how many players have significantly improved and moved up the depth chart since making their NHL debut? There are far, FAR too many players that played their best hockey for the Kings their rookie year and just never improved or got worse as time went on.
Heck even Iafallo never really improved past the 30-40 point guy he was as a rookie.
Something is causing a significant amount of players to completely stagnate once they join the Kings and/or Reign and that's ALL development.
It is normal for guys who live close to the beach to surf in sunny warm So Cal..
You want to pick from a west Hollywood theater troop?
The long term outcome lens of the prospect pool brings final confirmation not the rankings a few years after.
Many here like the Kings picks in round 2+ and feel round 1 needs to be better.
The LION's share of noticeable stagnating development are round one picks
Iafallo was one of the Kings best players when it mattered in the playoffs last year.
He kept all his good features and also became a net front guy and potted a few goals.
Smart demand by chevy.
TMac is the head coach, he is given the ingredients and its his job to come up with a winning recipe.
He does not seem to know how to get the most out of the ingredients, he keeps swiching them and quickly pulling the baking cake out of the oven adding
and subtracting ingredients and then putting it back in the oven, over and over.
He needs to be factored into the drafting and development kitchen and what it produces as well.
AS I polled recently, I think this is it for Tmac without a playoff breakthrough.
Vegas and Edmonton are cup contenders and the Kings are not unless they somehow get past both.
Give TMac's history of getting leads both in games and in series and then going on to lose them, it seems like a restaurant that won't stay in business.
-Dowd is a stanley cup champion 4C. best season away from the Kings.
-Kubalik developing overseas is exactly why we're critical of the Kings
-Pearson left after a broken leg of course he was never the same again--BUT he had his best season one year removed from the Kings...and of course he was drafted as an overager
-Toffoli is probably our best example of good development, yet by far his best season was away from the Kings.
-Fasching was at a 32 point pace last year, that's fine for a bottom sixer.
-Shore hasn't done shit, that's fine, but several playoff teams had him in a defensive role where the worthless Kings couldn't find a spot for him.
-Eyssimont also at a 30+ point pace and just signed for two years with tampa bay
-Colin Miller turned out 'pretty good', putting up 41 points in a role for Vegas and has now been on deep playoff runs on both VGK and DAL
No one is saying oh no we blew it other than really on Cernak--but that wasn't your question. We aren't trying to cry over spilt milk here--your question verbatim was 'who developed outside the organization' and some of it is development and lots of it is usage/deployment but this is a list of players as long OUT of the organization as WITHIN the organization. Does that not strike you as even slightly problematic? It also shows the drafting is, by and large, 'fine' at worst, given the amount of late draftees finding NHL success.
If you're going to go out of your way to discredit those guys, why don't you also address my list of guys within the org?
And yes--I showed how the Kings were different in their development. No one is doing nearly as goofy of shit with especially their top picks as we are.
Edit: and re Roy: I'd say that's an example of good development too. But that's a 7th rounder drafted as an offensive dman who became a good gritty defensive force. That seems more like an accident than a blueprint at this point.
It's not an asterisk, it's the point that the Kings are great at developing JAGs with late picks but dog food at developing blue chip/offensive talents with higher picks. Unless one of these guys pans out hard in the next year or two--that's a literal DECADE of WASTED 1st and 2nd round picks. And even if one pans out, that's just one out of 20-ish!
Edit Edit: and finally--this is all just to say we're at a MAJOR crossroads/inflection point right now. Everything I say above COULD be invalidated in a few weeks. But if several guys entering now their D+4 to D+6 years aren't showing up, then yeah, I think all our criticisms and worries start looking troublingly accurate. I'd love to be completely and horribly wrong.
This post illustrates that other teams management knows how to identify the right guys for the right need of their team with the right coach.
Look how Sutter came in evaluated got rid of some veteran plugs and promoted D. King and the indian guy Nolan and the Kings went on to their finest hours.
Cernak was a mistake but when you are going all in for the cup you are going to give up some guys with a lot of potential.
Also not protecting McNab.
The guys that went on to win cups don't deserve a bunch of team credit.
The management and coach deserve more credit for identifying and acquiring the right guy for the right role as ingredients in a winning recipe.
Kubalik, obviously, but that was out of the Kings control. He never developed with the Kings anyway and he's devolved more than any Kings player has since his rookie year.
There's an ideal process I think successful organizations follow:
- draft players
- try to follow the best path of development; if they have NHL-caliber skills, then put them in the NHL and challenge them.
- If they struggle, THEN remind the players that they have the skills, but they have now experienced firsthand where they are struggling at the top level
- trade away the veterans/journeymen in a role the prospect is slated to play when you're comfortable in their abilities (or play them in the lower leagues)
- repeat the process for each player.
One of the reasons I've advocated against trading away Kopitar and Doughty is because they aren't the kind of players you can replace easily.
The Kings did this in 2012 in particular when they traded away Johnson, because they had Voynov. They did it with King and Nolan. Martinez had some struggles in his slated role, but then he went down and came back up.
They have since done the opposite of that, by and large. They:
- draft players
- decide if the player is good enough in the AHL, then try to get them in the AHL as soon as possible
- make the prospects wait until veterans and journeyman play themselves off the team or someone gets injured. Then with that call-up, you better not make a mistake, because you're fighting for your job.
You can see where one approach provides a challenge but growth opportunities with players who have competitiveness ingrained in their DNA. It doesn't always work. Maybe someone like Kaliyev won't ever respond well to any approach. But you see it with Byfield with higher demands pushed on him. Heck, Bjornfot and Durzi were at their best after several injuries in 2021-22, and they had to step up.
I know it's a gross analogy, but you don't have happy dogs when you force hunger. And that's what Blake has done by telling prospects to bide their time until an opening comes up.
-Dowd is a stanley cup champion 4C. best season away from the Kings.
-Kubalik developing overseas is exactly why we're critical of the Kings
-Pearson left after a broken leg of course he was never the same again--BUT he had his best season one year removed from the Kings...and of course he was drafted as an overager
-Toffoli is probably our best example of good development, yet by far his best season was away from the Kings.
-Fasching was at a 32 point pace last year, that's fine for a bottom sixer.
-Shore hasn't done shit, that's fine, but several playoff teams had him in a defensive role where the worthless Kings couldn't find a spot for him.
-Eyssimont also at a 30+ point pace and just signed for two years with tampa bay
-Colin Miller turned out 'pretty good', putting up 41 points in a role for Vegas and has now been on deep playoff runs on both VGK and DAL
Edit Edit: and finally--this is all just to say we're at a MAJOR crossroads/inflection point right now. Everything I say above COULD be invalidated in a few weeks. But if several guys entering now their D+4 to D+6 years aren't showing up, then yeah, I think all our criticisms and worries start looking troublingly accurate. I'd love to be completely and horribly wrong.
And we could go back and forth on this. Paces don't mean much. How long did it take Fasching to develop after he was traded? What about Eyssimont? Or when Weal finally played OK? Was that development, or just 4th liners finally putting it together? Or that fact that Kubalik was invited but never showed up because he didn't want to play here? When Miller was traded, who was he going to replace on the recent cup winning D? Was that poor development or logjam? With Toffoli, did he really have a better season? He scored more points, but how much have we talked about the Kings scoring tax? And how Kopitar would have 100pts anywhere else? If winning a cup by Dowd was a measuring stick, Toffoli did that here and nowhere else so wouldn't that be his best season?
It would never end really, and we could make great arguments both ways. All that means is that what the Kings do isn't out of the ordinary and happens to all teams. There are just as many good things as bad, which is actually pretty dang good. If you look at the entire body of work of development outside what's happened with Byfield and Turcotte, they are probably above average league wide. Do they suck at developing top forwards? Absolutely. Do they suck at developing bottom liners and late draft picks? They are one of the best, and a lot of those guys you listed weren't going to get chances here because we already had better ones.
That right there is why I think it's a drafting thing overall more than a pure development thing. One of the other drafting related things is what KP mentioned above - logjamming. I'm not proposing drafting for need, but picking BPA when you already have a slew of prospects in that mold is counter productive. Tossing a ball in the middle and letting them fight over it rarely works, and the constant cake and eat it approach where they try to develop and still hang on to everyone just doesn't get it done. Picks are important, but if you are going to draft 10 guys in the mold of Kupari and Fagemo, you are better off trading them. Blake has done a terrible job of consolidating talent until recently. Think of what this team would look like if he had started sooner, which a lot of us were advocating for.
And we could go back and forth on this. Paces don't mean much. How long did it take Fasching to develop after he was traded? What about Eyssimont? Or when Weal finally played OK? Was that development, or just 4th liners finally putting it together? Or that fact that Kubalik was invited but never showed up because he didn't want to play here? When Miller was traded, who was he going to replace on the recent cup winning D? Was that poor development or logjam? With Toffoli, did he really have a better season? He scored more points, but how much have we talked about the Kings scoring tax? And how Kopitar would have 100pts anywhere else? If winning a cup by Dowd was a measuring stick, Toffoli did that here and nowhere else so wouldn't that be his best season?
You asked the question, and I answered it with all I had to work with. You're effectively arguing with your own initial question now. We don't have many examples of the 1st and 2nd rounders panning out elsewhere because by and large we've hung onto them until they've failed. But a good example here that I forgot about that fits both is Faber--a 2nd round draft pick, developed away from LA, stepped right into a playoff team's top 4 without skipping a beat. They traded up for him, so they recognized a talent. Cernak, straight to the top 4 of a championship team. Point with Kubalik is he developed away from LA. Miller, away from LA. Toffoli developed with LA--I don't care to split hairs there because he's an example of mostly success but now we're talking 13 years ago. I never said anything about Kopitar--now you're strawmanning. The point was you asked for guys who developed away from LA and I gave you quite a few who were almost all later rounds--which would signify their drafting is 'fine' at the very least, but the thing they have in common is they developed far away from LA/Ontario.
It would never end really, and we could make great arguments both ways. All that means is that what the Kings do isn't out of the ordinary and happens to all teams. There are just as many good things as bad, which is actually pretty dang good. If you look at the entire body of work of development outside what's happened with Byfield and Turcotte, they are probably above average league wide. Do they suck at developing top forwards? Absolutely. Do they suck at developing bottom liners and late draft picks? They are one of the best, and a lot of those guys you listed weren't going to get chances here because we already had better ones.
Then make your argument that what the Kings do is 'normal.' I've already shown you how it's not, particularly with ripping guys into the AHL or to their oversight right away--and most of those guys have either failed or not panned out yet while the guys they've left alone have.
That right there is why I think it's a drafting thing overall more than a pure development thing. One of the other drafting related things is what KP mentioned above - logjamming. I'm not proposing drafting for need, but picking BPA when you already have a slew of prospects in that mold is counter productive. Tossing a ball in the middle and letting them fight over it rarely works, and the constant cake and eat it approach where they try to develop and still hang on to everyone just doesn't get it done. Picks are important, but if you are going to draft 10 guys in the mold of Kupari and Fagemo, you are better off trading them. Blake has done a terrible job of consolidating talent until recently. Think of what this team would look like if he had started sooner, which a lot of us were advocating for.
I 100% agree with most of this, especially the logjamming. I spent years going 'great another 5'10" two way C/RHD' after years of going "great another vanilla LHD". But that's where deployment and planning becomes part of development and that is my greatest area of ire overall. Yet, if your'e going to draft that many guys at one position, and they have no pathway to success at that position, and none of them are panning out at whatever position you swap them to, that would seem to be a failure of drafting/development vision as a whole. It seems we agree on that critique at least.
In short, I can't think of another team who does more with late round picks and less with high round picks...and a large reason for that is burying them behind veterans in both the NHL AND the AHL.
You're giving these guys a LOT of pardons. That's fine, that's your perogative, I obviously just disagree that they're batting single digits %s on drafting success--my thesis they're drafting ok, average at worst, but developing like garbage on high picks because they seem to think they're the smartest org in the league reinventing the wheel on development on them. And that's a hypothesis that at least several of us had going back to the start of the rebuild at all--"hey these guys are excellent at churning out bottom sixers/defensive players but I'm worried about what they will do with blue chip offensive talent because they've never had it to work with."
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
