Who does LA pick #2

[The Lukeman]

Correct, that is my point. He's one year younger; he's one year behind development and it shows. Drafting someone one year earlier takes one year longer in development time and is much riskier than drafting someone who has already developed, developed correctly and has already accomplished what they need to. QB lacks some maturity in his game, some dynamic-ism, especially when looking at the alternative, Stutzle. He has not accomplished yet what others already have. It's arguable that his potential ceiling is "higher" but really what we're saying is it could be higher or actually lower since we don't know, that's how potential is by nature.

I don't want a project with the #2OA. I think drafting in the mid to late teens, maybe it's ok to pick a project of a player. Every prospect has risk, even Lafreniere does. But I personally don't feel like LA can afford to gamble with the time or in risk, given their current situation. But that's me.

Just because a guy appears to have big physical stats, that doesn't make up for his lack of development. What's in the back of my mind is three times we had some similar kind of choice with three different outcomes, each pointed similarly in the same direction...Doughty over Bogosian (Kings choose smarter over bigger, win), Voynov over Teubert (Kings choose smarter and bigger, win with smarter), Tarasenko over Forbort (Kings choose project over smarter, smarter wins). Maybe this is all BS but this is what I'm thinking. Thank god we chose smarter over bigger with the last #2OA.

I would agree with you if it weren't for the fact that, despite being a year younger, Byfield is already better than Perfetti, and I would argue is slightly behind Rossi in the development cycle. Yes they had more points, but Rossi was on the best team in the OHL. He had great team mates he could set up and who would set him up. Byfield had 1.82 ppg, Perfetti had 1.81 ppg. He had more points because he played more games. Perfertti was not good enough to make Canada's WJC. Byfield was.

It is very unlikely Byfield will regress in his development. He is already top 5 pick when it comes to NHL readiness (Only Lafreniere, Rossi, and Stutzle in that order are more NHL ready than him). AND he has another year of development cycle he can gain from. Thats why he is considered #2 for the draft.

People talk about his potential because, despite being this good, he still has a lot more to gain. His ceiling is higher than Lafreniere's, arguably the 4th best #1 pick in the last decade. This kid could develop for another season and then come into the NHL and be favorite for the calder trophy, even over next years #1 pick.

 

[BigKing]

I read all this and can summarize your arguments here: “I’m willing to look at all the upside and ignore all of the risk, no matter how apparent it is.”

I’ll give you some real numbers...he only scored 82 points in 45g last season. Other comparable CHL players in the same draft: Rossi 120 points in 56g, Lafreniere 112 points in 52g, Perfetti 111 points in 61g. Point is at the top of the draft, the guys are all scoring 110+ points in their draft season...QB not only was hurt, which is often a big ding in your juniors draft season traditionally, he was more on a 90 point pace...that doesn’t translate into 75 points in the NHL. And he had no impressive showings at any of the participated tournaments this year either, I believe.

All QB has on an elite level is potential. I know this is HF but potential may be nice to dream about, it’s actually a big negative in the real world when comparing to surer things. It’s probably why multiple NHL scouts have him 6th overall and not top 3.

There is nothing wrong with preferring Stutzle if that is your opinion, but your reasoning is extremely flawed.

First off, he was not on a 90 point pace. That is ridiculous. Take his PPG and then add the games to get to the other players' totals. If he played 61 games like Perfetti, he would have paced for 114 points. As a 17 year old. On a garbage team.

Rossi, Perfetti and Lafreniere scored 39, 37 and 35 goals respectively. Byfield had 32 in 45 games for a higher goals-per-game than all of them. If you want to knock Byfield for flaws in his game then go right ahead but there is no sane way to criticize his production: it is elite and is one of the better U18 seasons we've seen in the OHL. You're just making up numbers with the 90 point pace and whatever this 60% bust equation is all about.

That brings us to making a draft decision based on who can play next season. If they can play in the NHL next season does not matter as trying to sneak into the 2021 playoffs is not as important as picking the player that gives them the best chance to win for years. The Kings are going to care more about the latter and Stutzle could be the answer to both scenarios; however, being able to play immediately isn't going to be at the top of the list when it comes to making a decision.

The Kings are rebuilding. They've said as much and it all began in 2019 with the Muzzin trade. Yes, they are paying veterans in Kopitar and Doughty but they will be paying them for awhile and expect them to be key contributors when this team is ready to contend which is definitely not next season. Now, getting 2OA accelerates the rebuild but that doesn't mean that it puts it into ludicrous speed and the rebuild is over starting next season under your "3 year plan". It means that they feel whoever they get at #2 should be able to be a legit NHL contributor by at least 2022 v. someone that might need more seasoning. Also, a rebuild isn't complete just because you compete for a playoff spot: the goal is to rebuild in to a legit contender. That is not something that could happen in three years. You also don't give the new coach a five year contract if your expectations are for a very quick turnaround.

Remember that the Kings didn't make the playoffs in Doughty's first season but they did improve by eight points which is pretty good. That was with adding a future HHOF'er that played 23 minutes a night on the blue line. I don't think either of QB or TS are going to have that type of impact so, again, drafting based on who can play immediately is a silly proposition. I'm happy these guys won seven games in a row to end the season, but you can't look at that and assume that they are closer than they really are. I mean, I think the defending champion 2015 Kings won seven in a row and they didn't make the playoffs and then they won one playoff game the next season: both of those teams are better than what the Kings will roll out next season even when adding Stutzle or whoever.

This upcoming season is all about putting up a year like the Kings had in Doughty's first season but it isn't going to be based on the performance of the 2OA. It will be up to guys like Vilardi and other young roster players/existing prospects to cement themselves as NHL players. Clague needs to show something. Maybe there is a surprise in camp like say, Fagemo. Maybe Turcotte shows out and is up in the NHL. It's most likely going to be a run back of the year-end roster for the most part, however. Read the tea leaves: they let Stothers go because they want a developmental coach in Ontario. I think the Kings are more than happy to let these guys incubate in Ontario and play big minutes together. For the big club, they will want to build on the good end to the season and see T-Mac's system continue to be executed better. They won't say it, but I don't think they expect to make the playoffs next season but it will be considered a win if they are at least in the hunt deep in to the season, kind of like the Kings were for a bit in Doughty's first season. It was during that season that DL traded for Williams at the deadline and then traded for Smyth after the season. In Doughty's second season, they put up 101 points.

That's the timeline they are on. 2022 sees Kovy's cap hit drop off and it is the last year of the Brown and Carter contracts. You'll start to see a lot of ELC's on the roster. Blake will be able to better identify what he has--or doesn't have--with the prospects and will be able to move on legit NHL talent since the Kings will have cap space and ample assets. It is playoffs or bust in 2022. Year Four of the rebuild. This is not and has never been a retool. San Jose did a "retool" to try and stay relevant but Blake basically gutted the team by moving pretty much every vet that had value.

The roster at the end of last season only had nine players that played in the Vegas series and two of those players are Amadio and Lewis that have no future with the team along with a guy in Carter that they haven't been able to give away. That is not a retool but rather an overhaul with more to come.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Correct, that is my point. He's one year younger; he's one year behind development and it shows. Drafting someone one year earlier takes one year longer in development time and is much riskier than drafting someone who has already developed, developed correctly and has already accomplished what they need to. QB lacks some maturity in his game, some dynamic-ism, especially when looking at the alternative, Stutzle. He has not accomplished yet what others already have. It's arguable that his potential ceiling is "higher" but really what we're saying is it could be higher or actually lower since we don't know, that's how potential is by nature.

I don't want a project with the #2OA. I think drafting in the mid to late teens, maybe it's ok to pick a project of a player. Every prospect has risk, even Lafreniere does. But I personally don't feel like LA can afford to gamble with the time or in risk, given their current situation. But that's me.

Just because a guy appears to have big physical stats, that doesn't make up for his lack of development. What's in the back of my mind is three times we had some similar kind of choice with three different outcomes, each pointed similarly in the same direction...Doughty over Bogosian (Kings choose smarter over bigger, win), Voynov over Teubert (Kings choose smarter and bigger, win with smarter), Tarasenko over Forbort (Kings choose project over smarter, smarter wins). Maybe this is all BS but this is what I'm thinking. Thank god we chose smarter over bigger with the last #2OA.

Calling Byfield a project and comparing his rawness to Teubert, Forbort, Bogosian just demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the player and criticising him for being too young demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of development paths and the concept of 'hockey years.'

The guy is days from being the #1 overall pick in the 2021 draft instead. The only reason he's long been #2 is because Laf is a sure thing. I guarantee these conversations wouldn't be happening if Byfield was #1, but instead the suggestion is he's somehow broken because he has a high ceiling.

And no I don't think saying he has a high ceiling is arbitrary, it's that despite the millions of flaws you think he has, he still had a historic season in just his second major junior year with a mediocre team--imagine if such a broken player ironed everything out! This is what we're talking about when we say people are talking themselves out of Byfield.

To put it in perspective--it's more appropriate comparing this Byfield season with last season for the other guys.

Thanks for this.

Didn't get to watch the whole thing because I'm in a meeting

Part of what I was talking about is illustrated in the first 5 minutes. Right around 2 minutes, QB is coming out of his own zone with the jump on 2 guys. He ends up being the last guy back in the zone behind his man, which with his stride and speed shouldn't happen. I get that it doesn't end up a huge deal, but if that bounce off the shot by #15 goes another way and they retain possession, QB's guy has a step on him and is in the high slot.

Another thing is at around 3:50 after he loses the 50/50 on the boards he peels back and kind of chases the puck a little, then coasts a bit and waves his stick at the guy who ends up passing it off and it's in the net. He's got to be more tenacious there, at that point there shouldn't be a gap and that pass that ended up the 2nd assist could have been prevented.

High expectations, yea. But that's the stuff that he needs to iron out. He's certainly not a project in my eyes, he's going to be dominant. Every guy except for Lafreniere is going to have some warts, I think QB is the least warty.

Absolutely. But if we're talking defensive awareness and systems, that's the least of my worries.

 

[funky]

I laughed but only because I've made this mistake in my head at least 100x and just haven't put it in writing yet

But I agree!

ha ha. No more posting at 1 in the morning after golfing and swimming all day with beverages. Good catch.

 

[Rorschach]

A project? Oh good grief. His production at his age is elite. He's accomplished MORE at his age than the others have. Forget his physical traits. The numbers don't lie. Now I'm starting to feel like Raccoon Jesus.

So you're saying that what he did at a younger age, scaled to that age, justifies his current value equal to what guys older than him have accomplished at an older age, also scaled to that age?

There's a reason why legit stars in the NHL command multiple first rounders. Players who "Might be" are worth a fraction of players who "Are" already. The history of the NHL and the NHL Entry Draft have shown this over and over again...guys who were insanely amazing at a younger age, then they get to their draft year and they are actually injured or just don't develop.

Angelo Esposito - as a 17 year old, he scored 98 points in 57g...excellent numbers for a 17 year old; next two seasons he kept declining 79 points in 60g, 69 points in 56 games...he was a 1OA projected as a 17yo, he fell to the 20s to Pittsburgh in the draft, he never played one game for the Pens

Alex Daigle - drafted 1OA, drafted as a 17yo...scored his draft year 137 points in 53g...had two 50 point seasons in the NHL and a bunch of seasons where he didn't even score more than 20 points

Nail Yakupov - as a 17/18yo, he scored 101 points in 65g...I think everyone here knows how that went

Ryan Nugent-Hopkins - as a 17/18yo, he scored 106 points in 69g...drafted as a 1OA, he became a decent middle-six center

All of these guys were 1OA or projected 1OA as a 17yo, they landed all over the place in terms of development. Other than Connor McDavid and Sidney Crosby, there are no sure thing 17yo's. Some 17yo's top prospects turn into Patrick Kane. Some turn into Esposito...it's a huge risk. I personally weigh what someone accomplishes at 18, especially playing with the best players and against top competition (since that is what the NHL is) as a heck of a lot more than what someone "projects" to be at 16/17.

 

[Rorschach]

I would agree with you if it weren't for the fact that, despite being a year younger, Byfield is already better than Perfetti, and I would argue is slightly behind Rossi in the development cycle. Yes they had more points, but Rossi was on the best team in the OHL. He had great team mates he could set up and who would set him up. Byfield had 1.82 ppg, Perfetti had 1.81 ppg. He had more points because he played more games. Perfertti was not good enough to make Canada's WJC. Byfield was.

It is very unlikely Byfield will regress in his development. He is already top 5 pick when it comes to NHL readiness (Only Lafreniere, Rossi, and Stutzle in that order are more NHL ready than him). AND he has another year of development cycle he can gain from. Thats why he is considered #2 for the draft.

People talk about his potential because, despite being this good, he still has a lot more to gain. His ceiling is higher than Lafreniere's, arguably the 4th best #1 pick in the last decade. This kid could develop for another season and then come into the NHL and be favorite for the calder trophy, even over next years #1 pick.

You're correct on all counts...you even use the word "unlikely". But the risk is there and it is more risk than the guy he's being compared to in Stutzle. It's why in many, most recent, scouting rankings, he's fallen to number 3 behind Stutzle.

 

[BigKing]

So you're saying that what he did at a younger age, scaled to that age, justifies his current value equal to what guys older than him have accomplished at an older age, also scaled to that age?

There's a reason why legit stars in the NHL command multiple first rounders. Players who "Might be" are worth a fraction of players who "Are" already. The history of the NHL and the NHL Entry Draft have shown this over and over again...guys who were insanely amazing at a younger age, then they get to their draft year and they are actually injured or just don't develop.

Angelo Esposito - as a 17 year old, he scored 98 points in 57g...excellent numbers for a 17 year old; next two seasons he kept declining 79 points in 60g, 69 points in 56 games...he was a 1OA projected as a 17yo, he fell to the 20s to Pittsburgh in the draft, he never played one game for the Pens

Alex Daigle - drafted 1OA, drafted as a 17yo...scored his draft year 137 points in 53g...had two 50 point seasons in the NHL and a bunch of seasons where he didn't even score more than 20 points

Nail Yakupov - as a 17/18yo, he scored 101 points in 65g...I think everyone here knows how that went

Ryan Nugent-Hopkins - as a 17/18yo, he scored 106 points in 69g...drafted as a 1OA, he became a decent middle-six center

All of these guys were 1OA or projected 1OA as a 17yo, they landed all over the place in terms of development. Other than Connor McDavid and Sidney Crosby, there are no sure thing 17yo's. Some 17yo's top prospects turn into Patrick Kane. Some turn into Esposito...it's a huge risk. I personally weigh what someone accomplishes at 18, especially playing with the best players and against top competition (since that is what the NHL is) as a heck of a lot more than what someone "projects" to be at 16/17.

Pretty much every draft pick is a "might be": even 1OA.

 

[Rorschach]

There is nothing wrong with preferring Stutzle if that is your opinion, but your reasoning is extremely flawed.

First off, he was not on a 90 point pace. That is ridiculous. Take his PPG and then add the games to get to the other players' totals. If he played 61 games like Perfetti, he would have paced for 114 points. As a 17 year old. On a garbage team.

I bolded the words in question. My whole point is QB is a bunch of Ifs. If doesn't count as much as "did", no matter the pace. That's not unsound reasoning on my part.

They don't give awards on scoring pace, they give them based on highest final total. Otherwise we should give up our Cups...if Daniel Sedin played all of the games, maybe we don't beat Vancouver in 2012; if Pietrangelo doesn't get bodied by Dwight King, maybe the Blues don't get swept in 2012 and they find a way; New Jersey despite being the arguably weakest team we played in 2012, won two games from us despite being down 3-0 at home just like the previous three teams we played, as if we could assume the same result without playing the games...after all we were winning at that pace the first three series; in 2014, if Vlasic doesn't get hurt, maybe we get swept by San Jose.

Ifs and pace are endless and count for nothing. Especially when compared with actual accomplishments. As someone who has followed prospects since 1990 (due to collecting hockey cards) I can name you a ton of guys who were on pace as young players to have incredible numbers (and hall of fame careers) if we would just project them...Jim Carey, Patrick Lebeau, Gilbert Dionne, Ken Hodge, Jr., Troy Gamble, Blaine Lacher, Anders Hedberg, Jim Hiller, Shawn McEachern, on and on...and I can name even more in baseball.

Projections don't get you into the hall of fame nor does it win Stanley Cups...it doesn't even get you a regular season award (except for maybe the Calder Trophy). A hall of famer is someone who can be excellent for many entire seasons. I know no one is calling QB here a hall of famer but I need to use the extreme example to show the difference between accomplishments and projections. In a vacuum, QB's projections are impressive. But to me, Stutzles accomplishments are worth more if I have to spend the 2OA to get them.

 

[The Lukeman]

You're correct on all counts...you even use the word "unlikely". But the risk is there and it is more risk than the guy he's being compared to in Stutzle. It's why in many, most recent, scouting rankings, he's fallen to number 3 behind Stutzle.

I respect what you have to say and the reasoning behind that. I won't be complaining if LA selects Stutzle at 2. I think he will do well in the NHL. Personally I've a big fan of Byfield's game since October, and I think he did what he needed to do this season to stay that way, that's why I want him at 2. But Stutzle has shown elite playmaking. They both have flaws to work on that they will improve on. I am excited for Oct 6

 

[KINGS17]

No, I agree with you, he definitely does NOT play a heavy game...in fact that's a common critique of him that he doesn't really use his size. But lots of other people here are saying his size is such a big deal, potentially, enough to overlook his lack of major accomplishments and a whole year less of development. I'm saying that size in today's NHL really doesn't matter as much anymore and neither should it matter to the Kings who are not trying to draft as much size in order to build a heavy team.

Let's list a few of Byfield's major accomplishments:

• OHL/CHL rookie of the year
• Made Team Canada with a 2002 birthday (one of only two players with 2002 birthdays, the other being Drysdale who is 6 months older)
• Led his team in scoring as a 16-year old, and a 17-year old

What more would you ask of a 17-year old? Let Byfield play junior hockey next year, and you will see a greatly expanded list of accomplishments. A team drafting Byfield isn't planning on having him run defensemen through the boards, they are looking at his size, skating and agility to cut down angles on the forecheck, protect the puck, etc.

 

[KINGS17]

I won't say this will happen, but it could happen. If the King take Stutzle he may be the equivalent of Sam Bowie, and we know who the #3OA pick behind Sam was, right?

 

[Rorschach]

Calling Byfield a project and comparing his rawness to Teubert, Forbort, Bogosian just demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the player and criticising him for being too young demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of development paths and the concept of 'hockey years.'

The guy is days from being the #1 overall pick in the 2021 draft instead. The only reason he's long been #2 is because Laf is a sure thing. I guarantee these conversations wouldn't be happening if Byfield was #1, but instead the suggestion is he's somehow broken because he has a high ceiling.

And no I don't think saying he has a high ceiling is arbitrary, it's that despite the millions of flaws you think he has, he still had a historic season in just his second major junior year with a mediocre team--imagine if such a broken player ironed everything out! This is what we're talking about when we say people are talking themselves out of Byfield.

To put it in perspective--it's more appropriate comparing this Byfield season with last season for the other guys.

Until he accomplishes those projected things, he has not accomplished them. That is not a criticism; it is a statement of fact...you're reading as a criticism that way because of your perspective. And if we draft him before he accomplishes those things that means we're committing to that extra development...that to me is the definition of a project. By the way, in all three examples, I was not comparing rawness...I never used that word. I was comparing the smarter but smaller player with the player that was simply the physically larger player in those examples. I don't believe Bogosian was any "rawer" than Doughty. Simply put, it was a comparison of hockey sense over size, not a development comparison. (I have argued that QB is much rawer than Stutzle...but those comparisons of those three players, I was now talking about hockey sense vs. size...QB is excellent in hockey sense in a limited scope and he's big, Stutzle has even better hockey sense and is normal size...the size benefit means little to me in today's NHL).

And I'm not arguing ceiling either...how would I know what their ceiling is?
I'm saying, if you're climbing a twenty rung ladder, with the number ladder rungs representing ceiling, lets say it's twenty rungs represents full potential...I'd rather bet on the guy I think is on run 13 than the guy I can see is below rung 10. They both have a long way to go, I bet on the guy who's ahead if I have to bet at all, bet it all, and have to bet right now.

Now there's a debate on whether we have to bet right now. I think we do. Others say we don't. Fair enough...we each have our perspective...I want Doughty to get one more shot, especially since we don't have a Doughty in the pipeline it seems (although who knows, maybe Walker turns into Giordano). I haven't given up on these guys yet. Others want to full rebuild (it is HF after all). If you look at it from my "right now" perspective, you choose the surer, further along, 13th rung guy in Stutzle. If you look at it from the "we got time, lots of time" perspective, QB may STEP OVER Stutzle and even Lafreniere, moving to rung 14+ by end of next season. But, everyone needs to admit it, who knows?

Anyways...to be really real, I'm having fun debating all of this...what a wonderful situation to be in.

 

[Rorschach]

Pretty much every draft pick is a "might be": even 1OA.

No doubt. And even moreso the 2OA. Even Lindros, the surest of the sure things since Lemieux had an injury-riddled NHL career and never won a Cup. Still, if I have to go all in, I prefer it to be with the best odds with the best hand.

 

[Rorschach]

I respect what you have to say and the reasoning behind that. I won't be complaining if LA selects Stutzle at 2. I think he will do well in the NHL. Personally I've a big fan of Byfield's game since October, and I think he did what he needed to do this season to stay that way, that's why I want him at 2. But Stutzle has shown elite playmaking. They both have flaws to work on that they will improve on. I am excited for Oct 6

Right on. We're just having fun debating the greater of two joys. As much as Stutzle makes me dream now, in the back of my mind I hope QB embarrassingly proves me wrong...as a King.

 

[BigKing]

I bolded the words in question. My whole point is QB is a bunch of Ifs. If doesn't count as much as "did", no matter the pace. That's not unsound reasoning on my part.

They don't give awards on scoring pace, they give them based on highest final total. Otherwise we should give up our Cups...if Daniel Sedin played all of the games, maybe we don't beat Vancouver in 2012; if Pietrangelo doesn't get bodied by Dwight King, maybe the Blues don't get swept in 2012 and they find a way; New Jersey despite being the arguably weakest team we played in 2012, won two games from us despite being down 3-0 at home just like the previous three teams we played, as if we could assume the same result without playing the games...after all we were winning at that pace the first three series; in 2014, if Vlasic doesn't get hurt, maybe we get swept by San Jose.

Ifs and pace are endless and count for nothing. Especially when compared with actual accomplishments. As someone who has followed prospects since 1990 (due to collecting hockey cards) I can name you a ton of guys who were on pace as young players to have incredible numbers (and hall of fame careers) if we would just project them...Jim Carey, Patrick Lebeau, Gilbert Dionne, Ken Hodge, Jr., Troy Gamble, Blaine Lacher, Anders Hedberg, Jim Hiller, Shawn McEachern, on and on...and I can name even more in baseball.

Projections don't get you into the hall of fame nor does it win Stanley Cups...it doesn't even get you a regular season award (except for maybe the Calder Trophy). A hall of famer is someone who can be excellent for many entire seasons. I know no one is calling QB here a hall of famer but I need to use the extreme example to show the difference between accomplishments and projections. In a vacuum, QB's projections are impressive. But to me, Stutzles accomplishments are worth more if I have to spend the 2OA to get them.

How is Byfield a projection but Stutzle is a sure thing and not a projection?

Wayne Simpson led the DEL in scoring this year, a guy that never even put up a PPG as an NCAA player. As a matter of fact, Stutzle was only the 47th highest scorer in the entire league. Now, if I use PPG as a metric, Stutzle improves to 24th but this isn't about projections but about what he actually did since he could have gone scoreless if he played in 11 more games like Wayne Simpson. Being the 47th highest scoring player in the DEL doesn't mean jack shit in a vacuum. Simpson also has 12 years of a development time advantage over Stutzle. I know he isn't draft eligible because he's 30 but the Kings should sign this guy since he is leading the DEL in points.

Sounds ridiculous? It is ridiculous and that is what you are doing to Byfield.

The counter to my Wayne Simpson love letter is that Stutzle did this at 18 years old. Impressive, no doubt. We also don't know what any of this means since there aren't any real comps and the ones we have are outdated and not friendly, unless you want to draft Marcel Goc or Hecht at 2OA.

So, what this means is that you are projecting Stutzle's NHL future based on his production in the DEL and a good WJC with projecting him being difficult since there aren't very many solid reference points. Byfield is being projected via numerous reference points since the OHL has been a top feeder of NHL talent for years and he compares very favorably to his peers. At the end of the day though, it is all projections. Once again, it is okay to prefer Stutzle but your argument against Byfield doesn't hold water and makes you unable to support your Stutlze preference other than you just prefer the player and/or you simply want the guy you think will be on the team next season because you believe they are much closer than they actually are.

As for your list of players that had good junior seasons and either busted or didn't match their potential, I will give you this gem:

Patrik Stefan. #1OA 1999. Over a PPG in the IHL in his draft year, a league better or comparable to the DEL. I mean, if he is performing like this against men in the IHL then he's a slam dunk...

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Until he accomplishes those projected things, he has not accomplished them. That is not a criticism; it is a statement of fact...you're reading as a criticism that way because of your perspective. And if we draft him before he accomplishes those things that means we're committing to that extra development...that to me is the definition of a project. By the way, in all three examples, I was not comparing rawness...I never used that word. I was comparing the smarter but smaller player with the player that was simply the physically larger player in those examples. I don't believe Bogosian was any "rawer" than Doughty. Simply put, it was a comparison of hockey sense over size, not a development comparison. (I have argued that QB is much rawer than Stutzle...but those comparisons of those three players, I was now talking about hockey sense vs. size...QB is excellent in hockey sense in a limited scope and he's big, Stutzle has even better hockey sense and is normal size...the size benefit means little to me in today's NHL).

And I'm not arguing ceiling either...how would I know what their ceiling is?
I'm saying, if you're climbing a twenty rung ladder, with the number ladder rungs representing ceiling, lets say it's twenty rungs represents full potential...I'd rather bet on the guy I think is on run 13 than the guy I can see is below rung 10. They both have a long way to go, I bet on the guy who's ahead if I have to bet at all, bet it all, and have to bet right now.

Now there's a debate on whether we have to bet right now. I think we do. Others say we don't. Fair enough...we each have our perspective...I want Doughty to get one more shot, especially since we don't have a Doughty in the pipeline it seems (although who knows, maybe Walker turns into Giordano). I haven't given up on these guys yet. Others want to full rebuild (it is HF after all). If you look at it from my "right now" perspective, you choose the surer, further along, 13th rung guy in Stutzle. If you look at it from the "we got time, lots of time" perspective, QB may STEP OVER Stutzle and even Lafreniere, moving to rung 14+ by end of next season. But, everyone needs to admit it, who knows?

Anyways...to be really real, I'm having fun debating all of this...what a wonderful situation to be in.

I guess what I'm saying is even in those comparisons, they're unjust to Byfield because they're painting him as size over sense. Stuztle is a phenom, no doubt. Byfield is a phenomenal playmaker and stickhandler and skater as well, it's not 'size' over sense in this case. Some people say Byfield is just a better player straight up without even accounting for size. It's less like Bogo/Doughty who are completely different players and more like Wheeler vs. Gaborik or something since the 'big' player is also a savant. I think those comparisons make it very, very easy for even someone like me to dismiss Byfield.

I get what you're saying about actually accomplishing vs. on-pace accomplishments but I do think you're overlooking context entirely by punishing a guy for being too big and too young. AND--I think you're being inconsistent in application given you're giving Stutzle a free pass in translating from a league that has no real comps.

But finally, to me, I think it's a huge franchise mistake to select a player based on 'ready now' vs. 'ready in 3 years' for nearly any situation.

 

[Rorschach]

Let's list a few of Byfield's major accomplishments:

• OHL/CHL rookie of the year
• Made Team Canada with a 2002 birthday (one of only two players with 2002 birthdays, the other being Drysdale who is 6 months older)
• Led his team in scoring as a 16-year old, and a 17-year old

What more would you ask of a 17-year old? Let Byfield play junior hockey next year, and you will see a greatly expanded list of accomplishments. A team drafting Byfield isn't planning on having him run defensemen through the boards, they are looking at his size, skating and agility to cut down angles on the forecheck, protect the puck, etc.

You can't ask more. It's the tough thing...people did this to us all day in 2012...LA is not legit, they got lucky, they didn't really play anybody...no adversity, etc. Yet our Cup and our records all still count the same...you can only play who you face and you can only face what you can face...maybe Tampa Bay has a better team now than our 2012 Kings on paper, but I'd rather bet on the Cup winners than the better team on paper. That's why they play the game. Actual accomplishments count for more than projections. QB does not suck. I just prefer Stutzle in my mind for the reasons that he is more proven, accomplishment-wise (playing a whole season against grown men and showing up bigtime in junior tournaments), and he is more NHL-ready. A Cup win by team A in 28 games in four series, 16-12, is more celebrated than a Cup loss by team B in 15-4 (3 sweeps, 1 loss at 3-4), even though the earlier 12-0 record by team B looked more impressive than the 12-9 record by team A. How you finish means a lot more...QB hasn't had that opportunity but still he hasn't done it yet.

 

[SwedeChristoffer]

Projections don't get you into the hall of fame nor does it win Stanley Cups...it doesn't even get you a regular season award (except for maybe the Calder Trophy). A hall of famer is someone who can be excellent for many entire seasons. I know no one is calling QB here a hall of famer but I need to use the extreme example to show the difference between accomplishments and projections. In a vacuum, QB's projections are impressive. But to me, Stutzles accomplishments are worth more if I have to spend the 2OA to get them.

What accomplishments would that be exactly?

I would argue that there's a lot more uncertainty in projecting what Stützles DEL numbers mean for his future success than it is to project Byfields point-pace.

Since you don't like pace, then let's look at points. Stützle has the 3rd highest point total of all draft-eligible in DEL's history, sounds impressive. But who is ahead of him? Marco Sturm - maxed out at ~60 points in the NHL in a season and top-scorer Marcel Goc - maxed out at ~30 points in the NHL in a season.

Is his achievement really that great if the players ahead of him were mid-level NHLers?

Obviously I think Stützle will be better than those, since DEL since have grown and become a better league, but it's still a lot of projecting to be certain that Stützle will be a star in the NHL, if we are just looking at production.

 

[Rorschach]

How is Byfield a projection but Stutzle is a sure thing and not a projection?

Wayne Simpson led the DEL in scoring this year, a guy that never even put up a PPG as an NCAA player. As a matter of fact, Stutzle was only the 47th highest scorer in the entire league. Now, if I use PPG as a metric, Stutzle improves to 24th but this isn't about projections but about what he actually did since he could have gone scoreless if he played in 11 more games like Wayne Simpson. Being the 47th highest scoring player in the DEL doesn't mean jack shit in a vacuum. Simpson also has 12 years of a development time advantage over Stutzle. I know he isn't draft eligible because he's 30 but the Kings should sign this guy since he is leading the DEL in points.

Sounds ridiculous? It is ridiculous and that is what you are doing to Byfield.

The counter to my Wayne Simpson love letter is that Stutzle did this at 18 years old. Impressive, no doubt. We also don't know what any of this means since there aren't any real comps and the ones we have are outdated and not friendly, unless you want to draft Marcel Goc or Hecht at 2OA.

So, what this means is that you are projecting Stutzle's NHL future based on his production in the DEL and a good WJC with projecting him being difficult since there aren't very many solid reference points. Byfield is being projected via numerous reference points since the OHL has been a top feeder of NHL talent for years and he compares very favorably to his peers. At the end of the day though, it is all projections. Once again, it is okay to prefer Stutzle but your argument against Byfield doesn't hold water and makes you unable to support your Stutlze preference other than you just prefer the player and/or you simply want the guy you think will be on the team next season because you believe they are much closer than they actually are.

As for your list of players that had good junior seasons and either busted or didn't match their potential, I will give you this gem:

Patrik Stefan. #1OA 1999. Over a PPG in the IHL in his draft year, a league better or comparable to the DEL. I mean, if he is performing like this against men in the IHL then he's a slam dunk...

Surer thing, not a "sure thing". If I have to bet and go all in and go right now, I want to bet on the surer thing especially if both things in question have seemingly equal or unmeasureable upside. That's all. QB is not a bust. Stutzle is not in the NHL top 100. But comparatively you can't say there's no difference between someone who has done it against men and in big tourneys against someone who's opportunity to do so is next year.

 

[Rorschach]

I guess what I'm saying is even in those comparisons, they're unjust to Byfield because they're painting him as size over sense. Stuztle is a phenom, no doubt. Byfield is a phenomenal playmaker and stickhandler and skater as well, it's not 'size' over sense in this case. Some people say Byfield is just a better player straight up without even accounting for size. It's less like Bogo/Doughty who are completely different players and more like Wheeler vs. Gaborik or something since the 'big' player is also a savant. I think those comparisons make it very, very easy for even someone like me to dismiss Byfield.

I get what you're saying about actually accomplishing vs. on-pace accomplishments but I do think you're overlooking context entirely by punishing a guy for being too big and too young. AND--I think you're being inconsistent in application given you're giving Stutzle a free pass in translating from a league that has no real comps.

But finally, to me, I think it's a huge franchise mistake to select a player based on 'ready now' vs. 'ready in 3 years' for nearly any situation.

You're correct but I have to argue against what I see/read here and I keep seeing people giving counter-arguments and my counters are mirrors of their arguments. Every person I see is drooling about size and projections, and arguing that...or they are saying we have lots of time. My perspective is, we don't have time, we have a surer thing, the 2OA is too expensive to gamble, size is not that big of a deal just because we had Kopitar (that's a Kings fan projection), and both players have similar elite ceilings so it's not a "mistake" as you say.

If we pick the NHL-ready player who projects to be the first line player and give up the potential top 3 player in the league, that would be a mistake, I agree. That's not this case, that's selling Stutzle very short or way, way overestimating QB's 2/3rds of a 17yo junior season, perhaps.

Surer thing does not mean sure thing. It just means less risk, not the absence of risk. QB is just much riskier. And I like to mitigate risk when I can, especially when the payoffs are projected to be similar. Also, discounting size, to a degree, is not penalizing for size. I never said anything like he's big and therefore clumsy or something...the guy QB is an athletic phenom. We're not comparing apples to oranges (at least I'm not) here, we're comparing apples to apples...I prefer red delicious and I'm going to eat it right now...you prefer tart perhaps because you want to bake me a pie...I'll be full of apples and happy one way or another.

 

[BigKing]

You can't ask more. It's the tough thing...people did this to us all day in 2012...LA is not legit, they got lucky, they didn't really play anybody...no adversity, etc. Yet our Cup and our records all still count the same...you can only play who you face and you can only face what you can face...maybe Tampa Bay has a better team now than our 2012 Kings on paper, but I'd rather bet on the Cup winners than the better team on paper. That's why they play the game. Actual accomplishments count for more than projections. QB does not suck. I just prefer Stutzle in my mind for the reasons that he is more proven, accomplishment-wise (playing a whole season against grown men and showing up bigtime in junior tournaments), and he is more NHL-ready. A Cup win by team A in 28 games in four series, 16-12, is more celebrated than a Cup loss by team B in 15-4 (3 sweeps, 1 loss at 3-4), even though the earlier 12-0 record by team B looked more impressive than the 12-9 record by team A. How you finish means a lot more...QB hasn't had that opportunity but still he hasn't done it yet.

This makes more sense for why you prefer him and my previous post was being written prior to you once again discussing the next season v. the season after. I obviously wholeheartedly disagree with that thinking as it is extremely shortsighted but I at least understand the real basis of your argument.

In regards to the bolded, however, you are placing way too much emphasis on this since this league full of men has a ton of warts on it. I mean, Wayne Simpson! Who the hell is this guy? Well he's apparently the equivalent of the Art Ross Trophy winner for the DEL.

Stutzle's numbers are impressive and I'm not saying they aren't, but the DEL is consistently ranked behind the KHL, SEL, Liiga and the Czech leagues.

I just don't think you can look at one season in the DEL and one WJC and be like "This kid has proven himself but Byfield hasn't". I have no issue with believing he is more NHL ready, but I can't get on board the thought train of Stutzle being so accomplished.

 

[The Lukeman]

Side note: Craig Button said if he was LA, he would pick Byfield. Was with Jesse Cohen on All the Kings Men podcast.

 

[Rorschach]

What accomplishments would that be exactly?

I would argue that there's a lot more uncertainty in projecting what Stützles DEL numbers mean for his future success than it is to project Byfields point-pace.

Since you don't like pace, then let's look at points. Stützle has the 3rd highest point total of all draft-eligible in DEL's history, sounds impressive. But who is ahead of him? Marco Sturm - maxed out at ~60 points in the NHL in a season and top-scorer Marcel Goc - maxed out at ~30 points in the NHL in a season.

Is his achievement really that great if the players ahead of him were mid-level NHLers?

Obviously I think Stützle will be better than those, since DEL since have grown and become a better league, but it's still a lot of projecting to be certain that Stützle will be a star in the NHL, if we are just looking at production.

You're right to ask questions, lets develop this point further... actually you hit the nail on the head yourself...he's played a full season against men. That proves he can play a full and successful season against men. QB has not played the full season successfully against boys...he played a partial season that was looking good so far. Both are good, but when compared, I prefer the season against men. That's all. It shows he passed that rite du passage; that's an additional good thing if I have to spend a very high pick on the guy.

But you won't find me guaranteeing Stutzle's NHL stardom (except in my dreams, sir, there I do what I want!). Every draft pick except maybe Mario Lemieux is a risk to some degree. But some are riskier than others and some take longer than others and we have to weigh those things along with potential, not just look at risk but not potential, and not just look at potential and not risk. And let's be real here, pace and partial seasons against younger competition are much riskier measures.

In weighing both, both having tremendous potential and some degree (but not equal) risk, I choose (prefer) Stutzle as my BPA and MVPA (most valuable player available). I don't agree on drafting purely by positional need/desire, it never seems to work out for the Kings no matter what they weighed.

 

[BigKing]

Side note: Craig Button said if he was LA, he would pick Byfield. Was with Jesse Cohen on All the Kings Men podcast.

Really? They should draft someone else then.

 

[Rorschach]

Side note: Craig Button said if he was LA, he would pick Byfield. Was with Jesse Cohen on All the Kings Men podcast.

I've watched like a dozen mock drafts by amateurs to the pros...nearly all of them are picking Byfield for us. Only Bob McKenzie's projection as a major list is showing Stutzle as #2 publicly. Most of the mock drafts however are being based on reports that are two months+ old...I think by draft time, things will have changed a lot. Sanderson may be top five...so may be Raymond.