GDT: Training Camp 2023

[NikF]

When you have a top talent, you play him so he can get his 20 plus goals per year and keeps his confidence. Then you tell him: listen this isn't going to cut it, you need to check as well if you're going to win in this league. Instead, the Kings seem to want their top young talent to check first before they even get an opportunity to display their talent, which is ridiculous and outdated.

 

[Statto]

Is Nate Thompson the best option for helping young players? Doubtful. Seems like a loyalty hire.

You may be right but we know nothing about his aptitude to coaching. So I’ll wait for some sort of sample size before judging.

 

[Statto]

Bjornfot has stagnated, wouldn't say he's gotten worse.

They screwed him up by bringing him over too soon and rushing him. It also means he’s at waivers too early when they could have let his ELC slide whilst playing in Europe another year or two. The SEL is a good enough league for him to have developed in, it just wasn’t needed.

 

[King'sPawn]

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.

The direction and skillsets the Kings draft under are directed by the GM though.

We went through this year after year about how certain players "aren't Lombardi types."

Even Yannetti put forth the scenario where if they wanted more immediate gratification, there was a player other than Byfield (we're assuming it's Stutzle, but since he wasn't mentioned by name, I'm keeping it honest). Based on Blake's feedback, they went with Byfield.

So, this notion of "bad drafting" or "drafting isn't synergistic" (not your words but my attempt to paraphrase) is still on Blake.

 

[Surf Nutz]

Posters here don't worry about the bottom line, revenue vs expenses= profit

They have no accountability in their recommndations.

The Kings and Reign have a minimum standard of what they need to put on the ice for revenue and continuing to increase the fan base(es).

Part of the reason the Kings do what they do with young players is so they don't have to award young players with huge contracts on their 2nd and or 3rd contracts.

TMac is the coach and he demands players that can play on both sides of the puck BEFORE he allots them ice time.

He is fighting for his job/an extension.

Many teams that have high picks are some of the worst teams and have open slots.

This hasn't been the Kings since Bjornfot was needed and or the Kings had a kot of injuries and Spence and Durzi got spots.

Blake is all in, with one mulligan for another coach after the season before he expires in the next one.

We won't be seeing anything close to what you guys are pining for, barring a few different injuries, until then.

THis ship is more thn half way to the destiantion that keeps eluding them, they are not turning around into a sea of diminished revenue and a shrinking fan base.

Most of you guys have proven you are staying on board no matter how the Captain and the crew sails the ship.

Newer and future fans not so much if seas get even more stormy.

 

[Sol]

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.

I’m sorry bro but how can you exactly like him? Being good in the other rounds is essentially what like getting good third liners in the last how many years? How can you like a guy who’s a big part of the Kings failures?

 

[Sol]

Is Nate Thompson the best option for helping young players? Doubtful. Seems like a loyalty hire.

Wait what? Nate Thompson got hired for what ?

 

[Bandit]

Wait what? Nate Thompson got hired for what ?

Fluffer at the morning skate. Aka “skills coach”.

 

[Fishhead]

They screwed him up by bringing him over too soon and rushing him. It also means he’s at waivers too early when they could have let his ELC slide whilst playing in Europe another year or two. The SEL is a good enough league for him to have developed in, it just wasn’t needed.

Maybe, yeah. He wasn't overwhelmed as a rookie and was a better option than what we had. But if the Kings had done that, wouldn't that be another case of screwing a player up by slow-rolling them? There was no one blocking him, nothing stopping him from grabbing that spot. He got tons of playing time and did well.

It's one of the more puzzling things they've done. He had that injury which obviously set him back, but after that he should have been right back in there. He's the best example of when the Kings have developed a prospect poorly lately.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Bjornfot's biggest problem is the Kings having 100 5'11" ish dmen of the same 'average' stature

They drafted a vanilla defenseman by their own admission and now their complaint is 'well he has no real identity'

This is where I'd normally use the stick in spokes meme but there's just too much of it happening

They went for the 'safe' LHD pick for some reason (at a time when we had 100s of them laying around, too) because they were worried he'd be gone, then SMARTLY still were able to pick Kaliyev, who....they also refuse to play up.

I could do this all day. 99% of the Kings' problems are of their own design.

 

[Sol]

Fluffer at the morning skate. Aka “skills coach”.

Lol this organization and their hires. Should Nate Thompson have skills to be a skills coach?

 

[chris kontos]

I still cant figure out what they want out of bjornfot but neither can the brain trust.
Its a shame to watch this slow motion train wreck

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

I dunno man. Part of me is like...you don't need to be the most skilled player to be a good coach. And even then, Emerson was a great skater, Murray a great shooter, etc...Thompson has a good head on his shoulders and amazing hockey IQ. I can be talked out of the nepo hires complaint.

However, I still go back to the thoughts we had back before--we were worried that the Kings wouldn't know what to do with blue chippers not because those guys were all idiots but that they were used to developing JAGs, not high-end elite offensive talent. They hadn't had many shots at it, and when they did, they were mostly 'just' skating concerns (Vilardi, going back to Toffoli). And lo and behold, they seem to have no idea what they're doing with the more high-end offensive guys like Kaliyev, Turcotte, Byfield, Clarke--they've had the most questionable development paths of any prospect i've literally ever seen, and it looks like the development 'program' is almost one-size-fits-all with the weird things like making Turcotte off the PP in Ontario, Kaliyev 4th line, etc....supposedly we know it's not because of interviews where they talk about the individuality, and I want to believe it's not that way because of the staff they've hired and the infrastructure they have, but what the heck else helps to explain the goofy usage and deployment of our high end offensive talent? What's the vision for a guy like Byfield? At least he's getting top-six winger usage, I guess. But any idea what they want to do with Turcotte, who has played every forward position and spent long periods of time in the bottom six in ontario including no PP time? With Clarke, who they tried at LHD to solve their own problems and then SAT HIM FOR A MONTH in ontario? It's just 'we're smarter than everyone' looking and I hate it.

 

[kingsfan28]

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.

Those 4 you listed are more along the lines of specialists. Stoll mainly works on facesoff and recovery drills with the young guys, Greene and OD work with the defense. It's the higher up you need to focus on like Blake, Murray and Emerson and Luc. They're the ones telling them what to do and set the stage for every players development path. Murray is no way qualified for his job, yet he's Blakes #2 .

 

[kingsfan28]

I still cant figure out what they want out of bjornfot but neither can the brain trust.
Its a shame to watch this slow motion train wreck

He has really done anything to put himself on the main roster. He looks as vanilla as they come not doing one thing particularly well . His only upside is he's a LHD, but even that hasn't helped. Some of this has to go on him, not just fall on the Kings staff. He's a real enigma.

 

[Sol]

I dunno man. Part of me is like...you don't need to be the most skilled player to be a good coach. And even then, Emerson was a great skater, Murray a great shooter, etc...Thompson has a good head on his shoulders and amazing hockey IQ. I can be talked out of the nepo hires complaint.

However, I still go back to the thoughts we had back before--we were worried that the Kings wouldn't know what to do with blue chippers not because those guys were all idiots but that they were used to developing JAGs, not high-end elite offensive talent. They hadn't had many shots at it, and when they did, they were mostly 'just' skating concerns (Vilardi, going back to Toffoli). And lo and behold, they seem to have no idea what they're doing with the more high-end offensive guys like Kaliyev, Turcotte, Byfield, Clarke--they've had the most questionable development paths of any prospect i've literally ever seen, and it looks like the development 'program' is almost one-size-fits-all with the weird things like making Turcotte off the PP in Ontario, Kaliyev 4th line, etc....supposedly we know it's not because of interviews where they talk about the individuality, and I want to believe it's not that way because of the staff they've hired and the infrastructure they have, but what the heck else helps to explain the goofy usage and deployment of our high end offensive talent? What's the vision for a guy like Byfield? At least he's getting top-six winger usage, I guess. But any idea what they want to do with Turcotte, who has played every forward position and spent long periods of time in the bottom six in ontario including no PP time? With Clarke, who they tried at LHD to solve their own problems and then SAT HIM FOR A MONTH in ontario? It's just 'we're smarter than everyone' looking and I hate it.

Look.. I don’t think you can really make sense of it. I think if you’re going to hire former players make sure they were players who had a skilled game and aptitude. What does Nate Thompson know of what it takes to be a high end star? I’m just saying, I get what you mean but at a point it’s all looking a lot more like nepotism than merit based hiring.

He has really done anything to put himself on the main roster. He looks as vanilla as they come not doing one thing particularly well . His only upside is he's a LHD, but even that hasn't helped. Some of this has to go on him, not just fall on the Kings staff. He's a real enigma.

He did throw a big hit last game. I’m hoping he’s adding some flare to his game HOPEFULLY.

 

[Fishhead]

The direction and skillsets the Kings draft under are directed by the GM though.

We went through this year after year about how certain players "aren't Lombardi types."

Even Yannetti put forth the scenario where if they wanted more immediate gratification, there was a player other than Byfield (we're assuming it's Stutzle, but since he wasn't mentioned by name, I'm keeping it honest). Based on Blake's feedback, they went with Byfield.

So, this notion of "bad drafting" or "drafting isn't synergistic" (not your words but my attempt to paraphrase) is still on Blake.

I really don't think they are on the same page. It's been reported a few times that they like different players, I totally feel there is a disconnect. Maybe that's why Yanetti sounds like a salesman, he's selling something that he really wasn't on board with.

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.



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.




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."

Fair enough.

The post I was responding to suggested that there is a line of guys who fail with the Kings and succeed elsewhere, and I just couldn't think of any. My argument has always been that the Kings are normal, it's pretty common around the league to have few successes and lots of failures. I don't really care if people hate Blake, I don't particularly love the guy. But if you hate on him at least have a reason that actually happened. There are plenty of those.

Are guys going to improve when they leave? Of course they are, because guys who don't get better don't stay in the league. If the Kings hung on to Dowd (high is 3 more points than his Kings year), or Fasching (took 8 years and 3 teams to finally break into the NHL), or Eyssimont (27 years old, 15 career NHL points), could they have had similar years eventually? It's not like they are lighting the league on fire, or made these huge strides. So it stands to reason not much would have changed. That's all I'm saying with that, not pardoning anyone. They made some huge mistakes (Cernak for one), but outside of him has anyone truly blossomed to the point where the Kings development was obviously at fault? Hard to say, but no one jumps out.

For sure recent high picks, they've messed those up substantially. Clarke can help with that, at least. I've just always held that picking the right guy is super important in the first half of the first round. In the later rounds how you develop is far more important. You have to develop the top guys too, and that's where they've really screwed up. You won't get an argument from me on those guys.

 

[chris kontos]

He has really done anything to put himself on the main roster. He looks as vanilla as they come not doing one thing particularly well . His only upside is he's a LHD, but even that hasn't helped. Some of this has to go on him, not just fall on the Kings staff. He's a real enigma.

Its interesting that they played him as #2 for an entire season. Objective evidence mgmt has absolutely no idea what there doing with this player.
I hate to see whats happening to this young man who has done everything they have asked of him only to get shafted for his effort

 

[Sol]

Regardless of Blake’s fault or Yanetti. They both got to leave. It’s not acceptable that they can survive this without bringing in talent with all these players. I think a stance I have that is easily disagreeable is that regardless of what happens with the Kings this year, anything short of a cup l, Blake and Yanetti have to be on the chopping block. No way you can mess up these many high caliber draft positions and survive. Blake digging himself out of a grave he put himself in is not anything that warrants praise.

 

[chris kontos]

Being relatively invisible is not always a bad trait in a defenseman

 

[Fishhead]

I’m sorry bro but how can you exactly like him? Being good in the other rounds is essentially what like getting good third liners in the last how many years? How can you like a guy who’s a big part of the Kings failures?

I like him, as in I like his personality, he's great to listen too. I don't mean I like the job he's done.

 

[Sol]

I like him, as in I like his personality, he's great to listen too. I don't mean I like the job he's done.

Oh okay. I get it. I don’t like someone just because they’re good at sweet-talking I guess. So i have difficulty separating the talking from action.

 

[Fishhead]

Regardless of Blake’s fault or Yanetti. They both got to leave. It’s not acceptable that they can survive this without bringing in talent with all these players. I think a stance I have that is easily disagreeable is that regardless of what happens with the Kings this year, anything short of a cup l, Blake and Yanetti have to be on the chopping block. No way you can mess up these many high caliber draft positions and survive. Blake digging himself out of a grave he put himself in is not anything that warrants praise.

I'm not against both of them leaving or being shown the door.

But this is where the disconnect for me is... How many high draft spots did they screw up? 2? I'd agree if he screwed up a bunch of high picks, but he hasn't. He's had 3 top-10 picks in the 7 drafts he's been here and Vilardi right outside at 11. Vilardi has shown he's a damn good player, I don't think that's a screw-up. Clarke is looking like a great pick. To me, that's just inventing a narrative because you don't like current management, trying to make them look worse than their record indicates.

 

[kingsfan28]

Regardless of Blake’s fault or Yanetti. They both got to leave. It’s not acceptable that they can survive this without bringing in talent with all these players. I think a stance I have that is easily disagreeable is that regardless of what happens with the Kings this year, anything short of a cup l, Blake and Yanetti have to be on the chopping block. No way you can mess up these many high caliber draft positions and survive. Blake digging himself out of a grave he put himself in is not anything that warrants praise.

If Yanetti and his entire staff says draft Zegras and Stutzle , and Blake says nah, Tony Granato says I should take Turcotte and Byfield, how is it on him? Because thats what he did. Lombardi did the same with Teubert, and his entire staff was against it.

 

[King'sPawn]

I am "okay" with the Thompson hire. Even if he wasn't skilled, he's certainly been around a lot of it to learn some practice habits.

He seems to be well respected as a person though.

But it reminds me of Team America: World Police. The "Leader" of the team was introduced, ironically, as his skillset being "the best damn leader I've ever seen" without any additional context.

Thompson has seen the game, wants to be around the game, and I'm sure he would still outplay any of us 1 vs 1. But I would like to know what skillsets Thompson is considered to be specialized in or what the org's expectation of his contributions to be.

And if they felt they needed more skills coaching, did they have other interviews? When did they decide it? Who else did they interview?

Or did Thompson just say to Blake "hey, I'm retired, but I want to stay around the rink." And Blake just said "cool, let me open up a position for you."

I don't expect any actual answers, but this is why the hire seems more nepotic and that actual development of skills is an ancillary goal.