When to extend Byfield?

[Sol]

Byfield has arrived. If he’d take a 6m x 8y (doubt if), I’d go for it now. Otherwise, I’d hope for some regression and try to lock him up. He’s looked like a different r player this season and I’d want to lock him up and gamble that he will continue to improve.

I’m not sure what happened in the off-season but hell yeah! He’s much more confidant, driving play and looking like a damn good player.

With how petersen turned out I think it’s idiotic to extend anyone when they start playing well. Let the season finish before you reward anyone for their short stint of good play.

 

[lumbergh]

I really enjoyed reading page 2 of this thread. Give yourselves a hand.

 

[Leafshater67]

With how petersen turned out I think it’s idiotic to extend anyone when they start playing well. Let the season finish before you reward anyone for their short stint of good play.

Goalies are voodoo. High risk = high reward. Signing young players to 8 years instead of bridging them is a popular strategy today.

 

[Sol]

Goalies are voodoo. High risk = high reward. Signing young players to 8 years instead of bridging them is a popular strategy today.

I’d rather wait tbh. It’s high risk high reward signing a player to max term in their first good season so far. He needs a short bridge deal.

 

[SmytheKing]

My biggest concern with Byfield has been his lack of hockey IQ at the NHL level, but he's looked pretty damn impressive the last few games (and pretty good overall early in the season). Starting to look more confident and creating more.

Really enjoy seeing him progress.

And I know it's kind of a joke, but I'm also in the camp that he's been legit robbed of at least 2 points so far.

I've never gotten the "Hockey IQ" knock on him honestly. I've always felt that was a comment that was, initially, tinged with a bit of racism. Now it's just one that, because folks have repeated it for years, has become a "legit" criticism. He always seemed to make the correct play, but he always rushed it or played hot potato with the puck. I've never questioned his IQ or ability, he just seemed to shrink when it mattered and never pushed the issue once challenged.

As one of the bigger Byfield knockers on here, I've been very impressed with how he's played in the past 4-5 games though. I've said for a few years now that he seems like he's going to be a Robert Lang type guy who impresses for a stretch and then goes back into passive mode. Let's hope he keeps this up because this stretch feels different than the one he had last year when he moved up to play next to Kopitar and Kempe.

He's collecting points now, but he's actually creating instead of hanging around. Last year, and earlier this year quite honestly, he's not making a lot of the plays he's doing now. He's leading the charge on attack and not just deferring and moving to empty spaces to watch. It's like a totally different guy out there right now. I don't expect him to keep that up all season, but if he does this for a majority of it? That's the big leap you needed.

 

[Fripp]

If he had an adult sized stick he probably buries that breakaway he had out of the penalty box.

 

[Eagle Fang]

I've never gotten the "Hockey IQ" knock on him honestly. I've always felt that was a comment that was, initially, tinged with a bit of racism. Now it's just one that, because folks have repeated it for years, has become a "legit" criticism. He always seemed to make the correct play, but he always rushed it or played hot potato with the puck. I've never questioned his IQ or ability, he just seemed to shrink when it mattered and never pushed the issue once challenged.

As one of the bigger Byfield knockers on here, I've been very impressed with how he's played in the past 4-5 games though. I've said for a few years now that he seems like he's going to be a Robert Lang type guy who impresses for a stretch and then goes back into passive mode. Let's hope he keeps this up because this stretch feels different than the one he had last year when he moved up to play next to Kopitar and Kempe.

He's collecting points now, but he's actually creating instead of hanging around. Last year, and earlier this year quite honestly, he's not making a lot of the plays he's doing now. He's leading the charge on attack and not just deferring and moving to empty spaces to watch. It's like a totally different guy out there right now. I don't expect him to keep that up all season, but if he does this for a majority of it? That's the big leap you needed.

Idgaf what color Byfield's skin color is, it has nothing to do with any of that. I think Kupari falls into the same category.

I haven't watched any of his OHL games, but I have watched all his WJC, AHL and NHL games. Some players don't make it at the next levels of hockey because they're too small, or they're too slow, or they're not skilled enough, or they're just lazy. QB is none of those things.

What I did notice, over time, was that plays would often die on his stick, be it from a bad pass, a bad dump in, poor board work, etc.. It wasn't horrible, but below what you'd expect from a 2nd overall pick. I've commented in the past that he'd take a play 90% of the way and f it up at the end on many occasions... and this is from someone who has been a HUGE supporter of the player. Check my post history. I've been firmly in the Byfield is Awesome camp save for the last 2 or 3 posts where I started to raise concerns that this year was the year he needed to show something.

Contrast that to a high IQ player like Vilardi. That would be the easiest way to describe it without writing an entire essay.

This year, especially the last 3 games, Byfield has completely derailed that notion. He's making all the right plays. He's finding the open man, he's puck retrieval and more importantly, what he does with it once he gets it, has been phenomenal. His decisions with the puck on zone entry are decisive and the right plays. He's using his size smartly to win battles. He's doing everything the opposite relative to any concerns I had. He's a threat when the puck is on his stick now and that couldn't be said very often the last several seasons.

If he continues his rise, it'll be clear it was not an IQ thing and just him needing the time to adjust to the NHL level.

 

[Sol]

I've never gotten the "Hockey IQ" knock on him honestly. I've always felt that was a comment that was, initially, tinged with a bit of racism. Now it's just one that, because folks have repeated it for years, has become a "legit" criticism. He always seemed to make the correct play, but he always rushed it or played hot potato with the puck. I've never questioned his IQ or ability, he just seemed to shrink when it mattered and never pushed the issue once challenged.

As one of the bigger Byfield knockers on here, I've been very impressed with how he's played in the past 4-5 games though. I've said for a few years now that he seems like he's going to be a Robert Lang type guy who impresses for a stretch and then goes back into passive mode. Let's hope he keeps this up because this stretch feels different than the one he had last year when he moved up to play next to Kopitar and Kempe.

He's collecting points now, but he's actually creating instead of hanging around. Last year, and earlier this year quite honestly, he's not making a lot of the plays he's doing now. He's leading the charge on attack and not just deferring and moving to empty spaces to watch. It's like a totally different guy out there right now. I don't expect him to keep that up all season, but if he does this for a majority of it? That's the big leap you needed.

I think this kind of characterization is dangerous to any discussion. I questioned Byfields hockey IQ because he was always uninvolved in plays and he’d be invisible generally. This is the first year that he’s actually been a lot more noticeable and is creating chances left and right. Maybe try to understand the criticisms of the players game rather than looking for the worst in people. Poisoning the well is never good.

 

[SmytheKing]

I think this kind of characterization is dangerous to any discussion. I questioned Byfields hockey IQ because he was always uninvolved in plays and he’d be invisible generally. This is the first year that he’s actually been a lot more noticeable and is creating chances left and right. Maybe try to understand the criticisms of the players game rather than looking for the worst in people. Poisoning the well is never good.

It's not dangerous. That's silly. I literally wrote that INITIALLY I thought it was and that, because of that term being tossed around for three years, it's become something that is accepted because he's not shown up since he was drafted.

For the record, I'm not saying any of YOU were in that camp. No need for y'all to get defensive about it. "Hockey IQ" for Byfield was based on...well nothing as far as I could tell during his draft year. He was about as dominant as you could get for a 17-year old but...curiously people questioned his IQ. I've yet to see anyone give any specific examples as to why they were...but it sure was a narrative. One I haven't heard of any other Top-5 pick in the years since or probably before.

In any case, even as a pro I never saw that as an issue. He always made the safe play. That doesn't mean it's always the right, or smart, play. It means he was always dumping the puck instead of turning it over or forcing the issue. Contrast that with a guy like Durzi. That dude has bad "Hockey IQ". He doesn't see that his plays are (beyond) risky and forces them anyway. There's a difference between adjusting and playing the game safely and making the same mistakes because you don't see them. Byfield was in the first camp as a King. He wasn't making any "wrong" choices, he just wasn't being aggressive or getting involved. He was too afraid so he just drifted to open areas and the front of the net after getting rid of the puck as quickly as possible. Now he's doing the work to make the chances happen instead of letting others do it. He's not suddenly "smart". He didn't suddenly develop "Hockey IQ". His issue was consistency and confidence. He still needs to show he can do it for more than a handful of games.

Also, you don't need to explain how YOU aren't looking at him in any particular racial lens. If you weren't doing it, I wasn't talking about you. Pretending some people weren't looking at the black kid and questioning his smarts and ability to "think the game correctly" when the entire history of sports is littered with people doing exactly that is laughable though.

 

[tny760]

how about you don't get the thread locked

 

[Brownie to Pancakes]

I think calling something dangerous when it's really just a mildly uncomfortable reality check is a far less responsible rhetorical choice

 

[Eagle Fang]

I think this kind of characterization is dangerous to any discussion. I questioned Byfields hockey IQ because he was always uninvolved in plays and he’d be invisible generally. This is the first year that he’s actually been a lot more noticeable and is creating chances left and right. Maybe try to understand the criticisms of the players game rather than looking for the worst in people. Poisoning the well is never good.

Well said and to be honest, I was shocked racism even came up.

 

[SmytheKing]

I think calling something dangerous when it's really just a mildly uncomfortable reality check is a far less responsible rhetorical choice

I think it's more a sign that text and reading on the internet doesn't give context and it gets lost in conversation and it's really easy to breed confusion and assumptions. It's like texting on the phone. You don't always get the nuance because it's easy to read one way instead of how the writer was intending it.

It's just a misunderstanding is all. Thanks for the support on that, but not really any need to dogpile or anything. It's all good.

 

[johnjm22]

Restricted Free Agents This Offseason:

Grundstrom (29 goal pace)
Lizotte (22 goal, 45pts pace)
Byfield (15 goal, 75pts pace)
Kaliyev (22g goal, 64pts pace)
Spence (25pts pace)

That's a lot of good players that need new contracts.


Current 2024-2025 LA KINGS:
xxxxxx-Kopitar-Kempe
Fiala-PLD-Laferriere
Moore-Danault-xxxxx
xxxxxx-xxxxxxx-xxxxxx

Anderson-Doughty
Gavrikov-xxxxxxxx
Englund-Clarke
Bjornfot

xxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxx

Cap Space = 21.7M

 

[johnjm22]

Locking up Byfield to a long term contract will likely cost about 8M-9M in my opinion.

 

[johnjm22]

 

[Eagle Fang]

I think it's more a sign that text and reading on the internet doesn't give context and it gets lost in conversation and it's really easy to breed confusion and assumptions. It's like texting on the phone. You don't always get the nuance because it's easy to read one way instead of how the writer was intending it.

It's just a misunderstanding is all. Thanks for the support on that, but not really any need to dogpile or anything. It's all good.

Not to jump on it again, as I know you're a good poster and you don't mean anything ill. I just think you could've said what you did without the first part as honestly I don't think that factors into the majority of peoples opinions when scouting a player, professional or otherwise. Kind of like, why mention it at all?

Certainly I agree that it's odd for a player to suddenly just flip the switch and learn the game, but I'm happy to admit IQ was not an issue but rather just needing the time to adjust to the speed of the NHL game.

I mean afterall, I thought Cole Hults would be an NHL d-man, so what do I know .

Again, I've been 100% in the Byfiled camp since day 1. Liked the pick over Stutzle and have followed his games closely. I know I've argued in the past that he's young relative to the leagues and peers he's played against going back to the WJCs. However, the more I watched him as he progressed up the ladder, the more things I noticed relative to what I'd consider IQ or hockey sense aspects. Similar examples would be players like Kupari or Wagner.

On the other hand, players like Turcotte or Vilardi or Spence or Clarke show high to extremely high IQ.

I don't think that was far fetched either as he has all the physical tools and attributes to be a dominant player. Yet something was missing from his game and it was more to do with completing plays over anything else.

 

[King'sPawn]

In SmytheKing's defense, I think there were some racial biases in some scouting reports initially (not by anyone here). It was actually discussed in one of Byfield's threads on the main board before the draft. The reason it was a topic of discussion is one of the individual scouting services heaped nothing but praise on the players they ranked 1st, 3rd, 4th, and maybe even 5th.

The one ranked second overall, Byfield, had a report of flaws and limitations. This is where the "Hockey IQ" first started getting thrown around liberally. And after that, some YouTuber hopped on and said Byfield only scores off the rush.

Once people start pointing out flaws, a version of the Mandela Effect kicks in and then people just start "seeing it" without definition. And this goes with the individual scouting reports.

I don't think (and I'm sure SmytheKing will confirm from their side) that anyone who dislikes Byfield or think he has a low IQ is inherently racist because of it. I disagree with some of the claims, but "hockey IQ" is a nebulous term that opens up points of discussion.

The point is there may have been some racial biases, either in the writing or editing, that all but suggested that Byfield is the only "bad" top-five pick.

And let's be honest, if the same scouting service did the same thing to Tim Stutzle, where everyone got praise instead of him, we'd also wonder about it. Maybe some would argue that it was because he comes from a less traditional hockey market, much like how we discuss that Kopitar fell due to being Slovenian.

It's not unhealthy to point out the possibility of biases.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

In SmytheKing's defense, I think there were some racial biases in some scouting reports initially (not by anyone here). It was actually discussed in one of Byfield's threads on the main board before the draft. The reason it was a topic of discussion is one of the individual scouting services heaped nothing but praise on the players they ranked 1st, 3rd, 4th, and maybe even 5th.

The one ranked second overall, Byfield, had a report of flaws and limitations. This is where the "Hockey IQ" first started getting thrown around liberally. And after that, some YouTuber hopped on and said Byfield only scores off the rush.

Once people start pointing out flaws, a version of the Mandela Effect kicks in and then people just start "seeing it" without definition. And this goes with the individual scouting reports.

I don't think (and I'm sure SmytheKing will confirm from their side) that anyone who dislikes Byfield or think he has a low IQ is inherently racist because of it. I disagree with some of the claims, but "hockey IQ" is a nebulous term that opens up points of discussion.

The point is there may have been some racial biases, either in the writing or editing, that all but suggested that Byfield is the only "bad" top-five pick.

And let's be honest, if the same scouting service did the same thing to Tim Stutzle, where everyone got praise instead of him, we'd also wonder about it. Maybe some would argue that it was because he comes from a less traditional hockey market, much like how we discuss that Kopitar fell due to being Slovenian.

It's not unhealthy to point out the possibility of biases.

This is where it came from, backing up this narrative 100%.

There was some obnoxious stuff in that draft report and also in the threads. It was bad. And one glance at the poster histories would show that it was pretty unfortunately common (ie similar commentary on Byfuglien and others).

And it was no one here participating in that, but that's also why we're resisting the 'hockey IQ' narrative because it just becomes an umbrella for any complaints about his game that lazy people can't describe.

 

[SmytheKing]

This is where it came from, backing up this narrative 100%.

There was some obnoxious stuff in that draft report and also in the threads. It was bad. And one glance at the poster histories would show that it was pretty unfortunately common (ie similar commentary on Byfuglien and others).

And it was no one here participating in that, but that's also why we're resisting the 'hockey IQ' narrative because it just becomes an umbrella for any complaints about his game that lazy people can't describe.

100% what you and KP said. Especially the last sentence you wrote. Whether conscious or subconscious, it was there. Like, everyone said Byfield was a fast skater, had tremendous size, a great shot, had no issues with compete or hustle. He had like 130 points in the OHL as a 17-year old which was (if I recall) pretty historically great. So, some folks hoped on the "Hockey IQ" factor.

There was mild criticism about his lateral movement and the fact that he seemed to score off the rush all the time (I'll note that you and KP also often asked "who doesn't in juniors?" to defuse that one). But nothing about actual technique or skill or anything. Just "Hockey IQ" which was a subtle dig at intelligence.

It's crazy too because I've often agreed with the criticisms Sol has about Byfield. I thought it was pretty clear that I wasn't tagging them (or anyone specifically) about that. I was only stating that the "Hockey IQ" narrative felt like it started with suspicious reasons and then somehow transitioned to being an actual thing due to it being repeated over and over.

 

[Herby]

I've never gotten the "Hockey IQ" knock on him honestly. I've always felt that was a comment that was, initially, tinged with a bit of racism. Now it's just one that, because folks have repeated it for years, has become a "legit" criticism. He always seemed to make the correct play, but he always rushed it or played hot potato with the puck. I've never questioned his IQ or ability, he just seemed to shrink when it mattered and never pushed the issue once challenged.

As one of the bigger Byfield knockers on here, I've been very impressed with how he's played in the past 4-5 games though. I've said for a few years now that he seems like he's going to be a Robert Lang type guy who impresses for a stretch and then goes back into passive mode. Let's hope he keeps this up because this stretch feels different than the one he had last year when he moved up to play next to Kopitar and Kempe.

He's collecting points now, but he's actually creating instead of hanging around. Last year, and earlier this year quite honestly, he's not making a lot of the plays he's doing now. He's leading the charge on attack and not just deferring and moving to empty spaces to watch. It's like a totally different guy out there right now. I don't expect him to keep that up all season, but if he does this for a majority of it? That's the big leap you needed.

Racism? That is ridiculous, but I guess in this day and age we see race in everything, even evaluating hockey players.

I’ve used the low IQ thing on plenty of players before Jack Johnson, Jacob Trouba, Adam Fantilli, Thomas Vanek. Some guys just don’t process the game as well as others. I’m guessing the Kings felt this way too and that is why he is a winger for now and the foreseeable future. Which is fine, he’s played significantly better as a winger and despite the belief held on this forum since 2006, wingers (while not as important as centers) are still a very valuable and important piece to a team.

Race being discussed and implying someone holds a hockey view on a player because of their race is a pretty terrible take, and one the forum should move away from going forward.

 

[SmytheKing]

And let's be honest, if the same scouting service did the same thing to Tim Stutzle, where everyone got praise instead of him, we'd also wonder about it. Maybe some would argue that it was because he comes from a less traditional hockey market, much like how we discuss that Kopitar fell due to being Slovenian.

I agree with everything else you said too but I'm just clipping this part because one of the arguments against Stutzle by draft folks and others WAS the fact that he was in a league that hadn't produced anyone but one guy so they thought you should take his talent with a grain of salt. It was crazy! You watched him and could see he wasn't some fluke.

 

[SmytheKing]

Racism? That is ridiculous, but I guess in this day and age we see race in everything, even evaluating hockey players.

I’ve used the low IQ thing on plenty of players before Jack Johnson, Jacob Trouba, Adam Fantilli, Thomas Vanek. Some guys just don’t process the game as well as others. I’m guessing the Kings felt this way too and that is why he is a winger for now and the foreseeable future. Which is fine, he’s played significantly better as a winger and despite the belief held on this forum since 2006, wingers (while not as important as centers) are still a very valuable and important piece to a team.

Race being discussed and implying someone holds a hockey view on a player because of their race is a pretty terrible take, and one the forum should move away from going forward.

Yes Herby. People are still racist these days and do have it factor into their opinions on 17-year old kids. They also get their opinions from YouTube "scouts" that feed their confirmation bias.

This is a reality and it's not a terrible take and certainly not something we should "move away from". As I already stated, I'm not talking about people who have pointed out very real criticisms of Byfield. I've got tons of them and have brought them up time and time again.

It's honestly so weird how defensive people get about this when they aren't being brought up.

 

[SmytheKing]

Locking up Byfield to a long term contract will likely cost about 8M-9M in my opinion.

I think that's a very high ask from his camp and one I don't think he has the leverage for yet. If he finishes the year with around 80 points I think it's maybe more likely to be close to that...but he needs to put together more than a handful of games for that.

I think, as others have suggested, it's going to be a 2-3 year deal taking him to the end of the Kopitar deal and then, depending on what he is at the end of that one, he'll get a longer deal.

 

[Eagle Fang]

Racism? That is ridiculous, but I guess in this day and age we see race in everything, even evaluating hockey players.

I’ve used the low IQ thing on plenty of players before Jack Johnson, Jacob Trouba, Adam Fantilli, Thomas Vanek. Some guys just don’t process the game as well as others. I’m guessing the Kings felt this way too and that is why he is a winger for now and the foreseeable future. Which is fine, he’s played significantly better as a winger and despite the belief held on this forum since 2006, wingers (while not as important as centers) are still a very valuable and important piece to a team.

Race being discussed and implying someone holds a hockey view on a player because of their race is a pretty terrible take, and one the forum should move away from going forward.

There's a name that I forgot about, Jack Johnson. He was a PERFECT example of a player with all the physical tools, but a 'low hockey IQ'.